Desert Hot Springs City Council
December 12, 2024

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
19 Table 1
Summer Construction Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source/Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2024 2.7 27.2 19.2 0.0 21.0 11.3
2025 28.6 13.7 19.0 0.0 1.5 0.8
Highest Value (lbs./day) 28.6 27.2 19.2 0.0 21.0 11.3
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Summer Emissions

Table 2
Winter Construction Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source/Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2024 2.7 27.2 18.8 0.0 21.0 11.3
2025 28.6 13.8 18.6 0.0 1.5 0.8
Highest Value (lbs./day) 28.6 27.2 18.8 0.0 21.0 11.3
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Winter Emissions.

As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, construction emissions during either summer or winter seasonal conditions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Although the Proposed Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction emissions, the Project Proponent would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations as the Salton Sea Air Basin is in non-attainment status for ozone and suspended particulates (PM10).

Modeling of the estimated emissions incorporated Rule 403 by default as required during construction.

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are categorized as energy (generation and distribution of energy to the end use), area (operational use of the project), mobile (vehicle trips), water (generation and distribution of water to the land use), and waste (collecting and hauling waste to the landfill).

The operational mobile source emissions were calculated in accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated February 21, 2023, prepared for the Proposed Project by Ganddini Group, Inc. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximatively 7,328 gross daily trips and 4,834 net daily trips.

Approximately 2.5 million gallons per year of gasoline throughput is anticipated with operation of the Proposed Project. Fuel dispensing emissions were calculated using SCAQMD guidelines (RULE 461- Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing). The VOC emissions can be calculated using 0.53 pounds per 1,000 gallons of gasoline (0.15 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons from the loading of gasoline into storage tanks (Phase I) and 0.38 pounds of VOC per 1,000 gallons from the dispensing of gasoline into vehicle fuel tanks (Phase II). The resulting emissions generated by operations of the Proposed Project are shown in Table 3 and Table 4, which represent summer and winter operational emissions, respectively.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
20 Table 3
Summer Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG/VOC1 NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile 14.9 12.4 87.4 0.2 17.1 4.6
Fuel Dispensing 3.6 -- -- -- -- --
Total Value (lbs./day) 19.2 12.5 87.6 0.2 17.1 4.7
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Summer Emissions
1) VOC emissions, SCAQMD guidelines (RULE 461-Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing).

Table 4
Winter Operational Emissions Summary
(Pounds per Day)
Source ROG/VOC1 NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile 11.9 13.1 83.0 0.2 17.1 4.6
Fuel Dispensing 3.6 -- -- -- -- --
Total Value (lbs./day) 16.1 13.3 83.1 0.2 17.1 4.7
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significance No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Winter Emissions.
1) VOC emissions, SCAQMD guidelines (RULE 461-Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing).

As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, both summer and winter season operational emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, less significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. SCAQMD has developed a methodology to assess the localized impacts of emissions from a proposed project as outlined within the Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology report; completed in June 2003 and revised in July 2008. The use of LSTs is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local public agencies acting as a lead agency pursuant to CEQA. LSTs apply to projects that must undergo CEQA or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and are five acres or less.

LST methodology is incorporated to represent worst-case scenario emissions thresholds.

CalEEMod was used to estimate the on-site and off-site construction emissions. The LSTs were developed to analyze the significance of potential air quality impacts of proposed projects to sensitive receptors (i.e. schools, single family residences, etc.) and provide screening tables for small projects (one, two, or five acres). Projects are evaluated based on Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
21 geographic location and distance from the sensitive receptor (25, 50, 100, 200, or 500 meters from the site).

For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a receptor such as a residence, hospital, convalescent facility or anywhere that it is possible for an individual to remain for 24 hours. Additionally, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors. Commercial and industrial facilities are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees do not typically remain on-site for a full 24 hours, but are usually present for shorter periods of time, such as eight hours.

The Project Site is approximately 4 acres. Therefore, the “2-acres scenario” was used to represent a worst-case scenario as larger sites are typically granted a larger emission allowance. CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate the on-site and off-site construction emissions. The nearest residential development is approximately 610 feet (~185 meters) east of the Project Site and therefore LSTs are based on 100-meter distance.

This is a worst-case assumption as the nearest receptor is located over 185 meters from the Project Site. The resulting Proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions with the appropriate LST are presented in Table 5.

Table 5
Localized Significance Thresholds
(Pounds Per Day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions (Max. from Table 1 and Table 2) 28.6 19.2 21.0 11.3 LST Threshold 96 3,409 44 12
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Operational Emissions (Max. Total from Table 3 and Table 4) 13.3 87.6 1.71 0.51 LST Threshold? 96 3,409 16 3
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Sources: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Summer and Winter Emissions; SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology; SCAQMD Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 2-acre site in SRA No. 30, distance of 100 meters.

Note: PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are separated into construction and operational thresholds in accordance with the SCAQMD Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables.
* Construction emissions LST
† Operational emissions LST
1 Per LST Methodology, mobile source emissions do not need to be included except for land use emissions and onsite vehicle emissions. It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of mobile emissions will occur on the Project Site.

As shown in Table 5, the Proposed Project’s emissions are not anticipated to exceed the LSTs. Due to the limited number of diesel truck trips per day, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Construction Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70- or 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the proposed project. Consequently, an Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
22 important consideration is that the use of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be limited to the periods of construction, for which most diesel-powered off-road equipment use would occur during the construction period (can vary) and only over a 7.5- month period. Given the temporary nature of construction activities, the concentrations and durations of any toxic exposure that might occur would be very limited. Therefore, considering the relatively low mass of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that would be generated during even the most intense season of construction, the relatively short duration of construction activities, and overall and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, construction related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in one million or a hazard index greater than 1.0.

Furthermore, with implementation of General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-2B, which requires all off-road construction equipment that is greater than 50 hp to meet the Tier 4 Final standards, construction-related TAC emissions would be less than significant.

Operational Toxic Air Contaminants
Emissions resulting from gasoline service station operations may include toxic air contaminants (TACs) (e.g., benzene, hexane, MTBE, toluene, xylene) and have the potential to contribute to health risk in the Project vicinity. Standard regulatory controls such as the SCAQMD’s Rule 461 (Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing) would apply to the Project in addition to any permits required that demonstrate appropriate operational controls. Gasoline dispensing facilities are required to use Phase I/II EVR (enhanced vapor recovery) systems.

Phase I EVR have an average efficiency of 98 percent and Phase II EVR have an average efficiency of 95.1 percent. Therefore, the potential for fugitive VOC or TAC emissions from the gasoline pumps is negligible. Prior to issuance of a Permit to Operate, each individual gasoline dispensing station is required to obtain permits from SCAQMD which identify the maximum annual throughput allowed based on specific fuel storage and dispensing equipment that is proposed by the operator.

The analysis reflects a maximum annual throughput of an estimated 2,500,000 gallons.

However, ultimate fuel throughput allowances/requirements would be established by SCAQMD through the fueling station permitting processes. For purposes of this evaluation, cancer risk estimates have been made consistent with the methodology presented in SCAQMD’s Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 & 212 which provide screening-level risk estimates for gasoline dispensing operations.

The nearest residential receptor and worker receptor are 185 and 500 meters, respectively, from the proposed fueling station.

Based on the established SCAQMD procedure outlined in the SCAQMD Permit Application Package “N” it is estimated that the maximum risk attributable to the gasoline dispensing would be 0.481 in one million for the nearest sensitive receptor and the maximum risk to workers would be 0.008 in one million, both of which are below the threshold of 10 in one million (see Appendix C). SCAQMD Permit Application Package “N” identifies the potential risk per one million gallons of gasoline dispensed at the defined downwind distances. The further the distance from the source the lower the risk. Refer to Table 6 for a linear regression risk estimate with distances of 25 and 50 meters from the source.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
23 Table 6
Linear Regression Risk Estimate
Residential
Distance Risk
25 3.63
50 1.35
Worker
25 0.28
50 0.11
Source: Risk Tool V1.105
As shown in Table 6, no sensitive receptors in the Proposed Project vicinity would be exposed to a cancer risk of greater than 10 in one million. Less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction-Related Odor Impacts
Potential project-related sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are of short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Diesel exhaust and volatile organic compounds would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the Project Site and therefore are not expected to reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant impacts related to odors would occur during construction of the Proposed Project.

Operations-Related Odor Impacts
Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the Proposed Project would include odor emissions from the intermittent delivery truck emissions, gas dispensing, and trash storage areas. The Proposed Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 461, which requires that gas station equipment minimize vapor and liquid leaks, thereby minimizing odor impacts. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals. The Project would be also required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. There will also be odors due to cooking food at the quick-service restaurant. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1138 would ensure that these odors are minimized to the extent feasible. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the Project Site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rules, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
24 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).

A Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation, and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis report (BRA) was prepared for the Proposed Project by Jennings Environmental, LLC (Jennings) in July 2022 (see Appendix D for report). The BRA addresses potential effects of the Proposed Project to designated critical habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or species designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Information contained in the BRA is in accordance with accepted Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
25 scientific and technical standards that are consistent with the requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW. Jennings conducted a general reconnaissance survey within the Project Site to identify the potential for the occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species. Additionally, the site was surveyed for any drainage features that would meet the definition of the Waters of the US (WOUS), Waters of the State (WOS), or CDFW jurisdiction.

The habitat on-site consists of a mix of Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa Shrubland Alliance (Creosote bush – white bursage scrub) and bare ground. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI), 48 sensitive species were documented in the CNDDB and 4 were documented in the CNPSEI, including 7 listed species and 3 sensitive habitats, in the Desert Hot Springs and Morongo Valley quads. This list of sensitive species and habitats includes any State and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, CDFW designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise Special Animals. Jennings analyzed the likelihood for the occurrence of all CNDDB and CNPSEI sensitive species documented in the Desert Hot Springs and Morongo Valley quads. According to the databases, no USFWS designated critical habitat occurs within or adjacent to the Project Site. Based on the literature review and personal observations made in the immediate vicinity, no State and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or expected to occur within the Project Site. Additionally, no plant species with the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on-site or documented/expected to occur on-site.

Desert Tortoise
The desert tortoise is a State and federally listed threatened species. No suitable habitat for desert tortoises exists within the Project Site. There are no documented desert tortoise occurrences within 5 miles of the Project Site. However, these occurrences are within suitable habitat and this species is not expected to occur within the area. Additionally, the Project Site is outside of the Designated Critical Habitat for this species. Therefore, no potential direct or indirect impacts on desert tortoise can be identified, and presence/absence surveys for this species are not warranted or recommended.

Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl (BUOW) is a state and federal SSC. The Project Site does not contain suitable habitat for this species. No burrowing owls were observed during the site visit. No burrows of any kind were located within the Project Site. No portion of the Project Site showed any evidence of past or present BUOW activity. No feathers, whitewash, or castings were found and no suitable burrow surrogate species are present on-site. Therefore, no suitable habitat exists on-site and no focused surveys are required.

Designated Critical Habitat
The Project Site is not located within or adjacent to any USFWS designated Critical Habitat.

No further action is required.

Nesting Birds
The Project Site and immediate surrounding area contain habitat suitable for nesting birds. As such, the Proposed Project is subject to Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
26 Game Code. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 shall be implemented in order to avoid significant impacts to nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1:

Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities.

Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are speciesspecific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Established buffers shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

Nesting bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) no more than 3 days prior to Project-related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no-work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field-checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no-work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The habitat on-site consists of a mix of Larrea tridentata - Ambrosia dumosa Shrubland Alliance (Creosote bush – white bursage scrub) and bare ground. Aerial imagery of the site was examined and compared with the surrounding USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps to identify drainage features within the Project Site as indicated from topographic changes, blue-line features, or visible drainage patterns. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas had been documented within the vicinity of the site. Similarly, the Soil maps from the Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
27 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022) were reviewed to identify the soil series on-site and to check if they have been identified regionally as hydric soils. Upstream and downstream connectivity of waterways (if present) was reviewed in the field, on aerial imagery, and topographic maps to determine jurisdictional status. No obvious signs of jurisdictional features were observed during the literature review.

The Project Site was surveyed with 100 percent visual coverage and no drainage features were present on-site that met the definition for WOUS. As such, the Project Site does not contain any wetlands, WOUS, or Waters of the State. The CDFW asserts jurisdiction over any drainage feature that contains a definable bed and bank or associated riparian vegetation.

The Project Site was surveyed with 100 percent visual coverage and no definable bed or bank features exist on the Project Site. As such, the Project Site does not contain any areas under CDFW jurisdiction.

Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. There are no streams, channels, washes, or swales that meet the definitions of Section 1600 of the State of California Fish and Game Code (FGC) under the jurisdiction of the CDFW, Section 401 (“Waters of the State” ) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or “Waters of the United States” (WoUS) as defined by Section 404 of the CWA under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) within the Project Site. Therefore, no permit from any regulatory agency will be required.

National Wetlands Inventory maps did not identify portions within the Project Site as a Riverine/Riparian system. Additionally, none of the requirements for wetland designation (hydric vegetation, hydric soils, and/or wetland hydrology) were found present on-site during the survey. As such, there are no wetlands currently present on-site. No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is currently surrounded by vacant land to the east, west, and north; and an auto services shop to the south. Regionally, the Project Site is located in a desert community. With development of the Proposed Project, wildlife would be able to utilize the surrounding vacant land for movement. The General Plan Planning Area includes large areas of open space, some of which are defined as biological corridors and linkages by the CVMSHCP and/or Natural Landscape Blocks by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. The Project Site is not located within any of these identified Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
28 corridors.8 Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no existing local policies designed to protect biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, within the General Plan Planning Area.9 Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservancy Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP but not located within a Conservation Area as identified in the Plan.
10 As such, there are no conservation requirements for the Proposed Project under the CVMSHCP. However, every project completed within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP is required to pay a Development Impact Fee to the City or County, depending on location, prior to obtaining permits. Because the Proposed Project is within the boundaries of the CVMSHCP, it will be required to submit this fee to the City, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 below. The amount of the fee will be determined by the City. The Proposed Project would adhere to CVMSHCP Section 4.5.3 which requires that “lighting shall be shielded and directed toward the developed area. Landscape shielding or other appropriate methods shall be incorporated in project designs to minimize the effects of lighting adjacent to or within the adjacent conservation area in accordance with the guidelines to be included in the Implementation Manual.” Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2:

Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Desert Hot Springs shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure that payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee for the Proposed Project is remitted to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission. 8 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
9 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
10 Jennings Environmental, LLC. Biological Resources Assessment report. July 2022.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
29 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the Proposed Project by Jean A. Keller in August 2022 and revised in July 2023 (see Appendix E for report). A records search request was submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) located at the University of California, Riverside. The records search included a review of all site maps, site records, survey reports, and mitigation reports within a one-mile radius of the Project Site. The following documents were also reviewed: National Register of Historic Places, California Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and California Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory. In addition, a request for a Sacred Lands File search was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Project scoping letters were sent to 20 tribal representatives listed as being interested in project development within the Desert Hot Springs area. A pedestrian field survey of the Project Site was conducted on August 6, 2022. The comprehensive survey was accomplished by traversing the subject property in parallel transects at 15-meter intervals.

The records search indicated that the Project Site is located in a well-studied area with 32 previous cultural resource studies having been conducted within a one-mile radius. During the course of these studies, only three cultural resource properties have been recorded, none of which involved the Project Site. Two of the sites, both located within one quarter mile of the Project Site, are represented by historical buildings.

Four principal periods of historical occupation existed in Southern California: the Protohistoric Period (1540-1768 CE), the Spanish Mission Period (1769-1830 CE), the Mexican Rancho Period (1830-1848 CE), and the American Developmental Period (1848 CE -present). During the historical era, it does not appear that this property was considered desirable for occupation or agricultural endeavors due to the many difficult environmental factors present. There is no record of the Project Site ever having been occupied or developed at any level. No cultural resources of historical origin were observed within the property boundaries during the field survey. Therefore, the probability of a subsurface cultural deposit existing within the property boundaries is very low. Neither further research nor archaeological monitoring during site grading is recommended. However, there always remains the potential for ground-disturbing Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
30 activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CR-1 shall be implemented to avoid potential significant impacts to historical resources:

Mitigation Measure CR-1:

Prior to issuance of grading permits, a Riverside County/City of Desert Hot Springs qualified archaeologist shall be retained to serve as the Project Archaeologist. The Project Archaeologist shall provide preconstruction Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel, establishing required procedures and protocol in the event that cultural resources are discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities. The Project Archaeologist will also be available to investigate any buried cultural resources upon notification by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Monitor and/or the construction supervisor. Should any cultural resources be discovered during the course of ground disturbing activities, said activities should be halted or diverted until the Project Archaeologist can evaluate the resources, make a determination of their significance, and recommend appropriate treatment measures to mitigate impacts to the resources from the project, if found to be significant. If the cultural resources are of Native American origin, a representative of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians shall also evaluate the resource(s) and make recommendations.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is located in a wellstudied area with 32 previous cultural resource studies having been conducted within a onemile radius. During the course of these studies, only three cultural resource properties have been recorded, none of which involved the Project Site. One site, located within one half mile, was recorded as fragments of a possible rock circle that could either be of prehistoric origin or the result of natural environment activity.

No cultural resources of prehistoric (Native American) or historical origin were observed within the property boundaries during the field survey. The entirety of the ground surface is covered by scattered granitic boulders, rock, and gravel, much of which appears to have been moved, perhaps by sheet flow across the property. There is no exposed bedrock on the property. A number of the granitic boulders would have been suitable for use in food processing or rock art by indigenous peoples of the region, but none for shelter. Many of granitic rocks observed would have been suitable for the production of ground stone tools by indigenous peoples, but none for flaked stone tools. Soil throughout the property showed uniform texture and color, with no evidence of a subsurface cultural deposit. A large cleared/graded area is present at the southeastern corner of the property that is frequently used by vendors selling a variety of goods. A short unpaved road leads from the cleared area across the property at a diagonal towards the western property boundary and it appears that this road has been used not only for off-road vehicle activity, but also to occasionally facilitate dumping debris.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
31 As stated previously, the probability of a subsurface cultural deposit existing within the property boundaries is very low, and archaeological grading monitoring is not recommended.

However, in the event that archaeological resources are discovered, the procedures as described in Mitigation Measure CR-1 shall be followed. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. To ensure potential impacts are reduced to less than significant, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

Mitigation Measure CR-2:

If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease. The Riverside County Coroner (per § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code) must be notified. The provisions of § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, § 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§ 5097.94 of the PRC). If no agreement is reached, the landowner must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§ 5097.98 of the PRC). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center; using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement; or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2, the Proposed Project would have a lessthan-significant impact on human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
32 3.6 ENERGY

6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful
use of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact.

Natural Gas
The Project Site is currently vacant and does not demand any natural gas service. According to the Project Applicant, energy requirements for all uses proposed on-site would be met by electricity. The Proposed Project would not require any natural gas. Therefore, there would be no increase in natural gas demand from the Proposed Project.

Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the Proposed Project. The Project Site is currently vacant; consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project would result in an increase in electricity demand. The estimated electricity demand for the Proposed Project was estimated from CalEEMod modeling output to be approximately 340,422 kWh per year,
11 assuming that the Proposed Project would also rely on natural gas. The natural gas demand was estimated to be 580,449 kBtu per year, which would generate approximately 170,119 kWh of electricity per year.12 However, as the Proposed Project would not rely on natural gas, the Proposed Project electricity demand is anticipated to be 510,541 kWh per year. In 2021, the non-residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 8,257 million kWh of electricity. The increase in electricity demand from the Proposed Project would represent 0.009% of the overall 2021 County non-residential consumption. The increase in electricity demand from the Proposed Project would be insignificant.

Fuel
Construction
11 Lilburn Corporation. CalEEMod Output for the Proposed Project. March 2023. 12 1 Kwh is approximately equal to 3.412 Kbtu.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
33 During construction of the Proposed Project, transportation energy consumption is dependent on the type of vehicles used, number of vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Temporary transportation fuel use such as gasoline and diesel during construction would result from the use of delivery vehicles and trucks, construction equipment, and construction employee vehicles. Additionally, most construction equipment during grading would be powered by gas or diesel. Based on output from CalEEMod, the Proposed Project construction activities would consume an estimated 40,381 gallons of diesel fuel for operation of heavy-duty equipment. Tables 7 through 9 show the modeled fuel consumption for all construction activities.

Table 7
Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number
of Days Offroad Equipment Type Amount
Hours
per
Day
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel
fuel)1
Site
Preparation
10 Rubber Tired Dozer 3 247 0.4 1254.36
10 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 97 0.37 675.31
Grading 20 Graders 1 187 0.41 648.93
20 Excavators 1 158 0.38 508.18
20 Rubber Tired Dozer 1 247 0.4 836.24
20 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 0.37 1012.96
Building
Construction
230 Cranes 1 231 0.29 5705.47
230 Forklifts 3 89 0.2 5777.45
230 Generator Sets 1 84 0.74 6725.21
230 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 0.37 10192.90
230 Welders 2 46 0.45 4479.15
Paving 20 Pavers 2 130 0.42 924.27
20 Paving Equipment 2 132 0.36 804.42
20 Rollers 2 80 0.38 572.01
Architectural
Coating 20 Air Compressors 1 78 0.48 264.18
Total Fuel Used in Gallons 40,381
Source: CalEEMod 2020.4.0
(1) United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonrod CompressionIgnition Engines in MOVES2014b. July 2018. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
34 Table 8
Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)1
Site Preparation 10 18 11 82.5
Grading 20 15 11 137.5
Building
Construction 230 97 11 10225.417
Paving 20 15 11 137.5
Architectural
Coating 20 19 11 174.16667
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 10757.1
Source: Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2020.4.0 defaults.
(1) United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018. Available at:
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and-data/nationaltransportation-statistics/223001/ntentire2018q4.pdf.

Table 9
Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number
of Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site
Preparation 10 0 5.4 0
Grading 20 0 5.4 0
Building
Construction 230 39 5.4 6545.7
Paving 20 0 5.4 0
Architectural
Coating 20 0 5.4 6545.7
Source: Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2020.4.0 defaults.

United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018. Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browsestatistical-products-and-data/national-transportation-statistics/223001/ntentire2018q4.pdf.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
35 As shown in Table 8, all construction worker trips are from light duty autos, it is estimated 10,757.1 gallons of fuel will be consumed. Fuel consumption from construction vendor (material deliver) trips is 6,545.7 gallons, as shown in Table 9. Construction worker and vendor fuel consumption are based on CalEEMod’s default data for vehicles miles traveled (VMT).

Construction would represent a “single-event” diesel and gasoline fuel demand and would not require continuous or permanent commitment of these fuel resources. Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require the use of additional use of energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure.

Operations
During operations of the Proposed Project, fuel consumption would be from customer visits, trips by maintenance staffs, employee vehicle trips and delivery trucks. As a worst-case analysis, half the miles were modeled with an automobile fuel efficiency of 24 miles per gallon and half were modeled at 7 miles per gallon.13 As shown on Table 10, the Proposed Project would result in an estimated 740,210 gallons of fuel consumption per year based on 8,022,920 miles driven.

Table 10
Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Annual VMT Miles per Gallon Fuel Consumed (gallons)
4,011,460 24 167,144
4,011,460 7 573,066
Total 740,210
In 2021, the County of Riverside consumed approximately 981 million gallons of gasoline and 146 million gallons of diesel.
14 The increase in fuel demand from the Proposed Project would represent a 0.007% of the overall 2021 County fuel consumption. It should be noted that one UST would be a split tank that would store both E85 and unleaded fuel. In addition, two of the 18 fuel pumps would be hydrogen, supplying a portion of the Proposed Project fuel demand.

Therefore, the Proposed Project gasoline and diesel consumption would be less than 731,759.3 gallons. The increase in fuel consumption from the Proposed Project would be insignificant.

The Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact.

As concluded above, the Proposed Project’s total impact on regional energy supplies would be minor.
13 United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018.
14 California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874. Accessed April 12, 2024.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
36 The Proposed Project would be consistent with the following General Plan Policies that promote energy efficiency:

Policy No. Policy Statement Consistency
MI-11.11 Reduce Energy. Implement regulations
and provide incentives that require public
and private developments to reduce
energy use over the long term.

The Proposed Project would provide trees
along the northern and eastern perimeter
and throughout the parking areas, thereby
providing shade in the summer and
reducing the cooling load.

MI-11.12 Energy Efficiency. Encourage energyefficient design of all new projects (public and private), including appropriate
structure orientation and the use of shade
trees to maximize cooling and reduce fossil
fuel consumption for heating and cooling.

The Proposed Project would include
installation of solar panels on the roof of the
fuel station canopy. As stated previously,
the Proposed Project would provide trees
along the northern and eastern perimeter
and throughout the parking areas.

OS-4.3 Rooftop Solar Projects. Streamline solar
panel permits for small-scale residential
and commercial business rooftop projects
by removing discretionary planning
permits or allowing approval over the
counter.

The Proposed Project would include
installation of solar panels on the roof of the
fuel station canopy.

OS-4.4 Solar Energy Systems. Encourage the use
of solar energy systems or any other
technologies that similarly reduce the use
of power from the grid in residential and
commercial uses.

The Proposed Project would include
installation of solar panels on the roof of the
fuel station canopy.

OS-4.7 Alternative Electricity Options. Continue to
explore, assist, and encourage alternative
electricity options such as wind or smallscale solar energy facilities.

The Proposed Project would include
installation of solar panels on the roof of the
fuel station canopy.

OS-6.1 Sustainable Construction. Encourage
sustainable construction practices and the
use of energy saving technology within
buildings. Consider establishing a green
building program that draws from the
LEED (Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design) standards.

The proposed quick-service restaurant,
convenience store, and car wash would be
required to comply with the California
Building Code (CBC) and California Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code)
pertaining to energy and water conservation
standards in effect at the time of
construction.

OS-6.2 Green Building. Require LEED or similar
building efficiency certifications for all new
public facilities and buildings. Encourage
similar green building certifications for
private development projects.

The proposed quick-service restaurant,
convenience store, and car wash would be
required to comply with the California
Building Code (CBC) and California Green
Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code)
pertaining to energy and water conservation
Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
37 Policy No. Policy Statement Consistency
standards in effect at the time of
construction.

The Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii)Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv)Landslides?
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Impact Analysis
a)i) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
38 for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. A preliminary Geotechnical Engineering report, dated July 29, 2022, was prepared for the Project Site by NTS Geotechnical, Inc. (NTS) (see Appendix F for report). The Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no known active faults are shown on the reviewed geologic maps crossing the site. However, the Project Site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. The nearest known active fault is the San Andreas fault system, which is located approximately 4.3 miles east of the site. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the building design standards of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) for construction of new buildings and/or structures related to seismicity. The purpose of the CBC is to establish the minimum requirements for protection of the public from hazards attributed to the built environment. The CBC applies to the construction and modifications to any building or structures in California.

A final Geotechnical Engineering report will be subject to approval by City Engineering that would require specific engineering design and construction measures be implemented to minimize and avoid potential impacts from seismic activity. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. a)ii)Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is the case for all of Southern California. The County of Riverside adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which requires that the construction of structures be in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) to reduce the hazard risks posed by earthquakes. Adhering to these codes and incorporating the recommendations listed in the geotechnical report can reduce potential ground-shaking impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
a)iii)Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in loose, saturated, relatively clean, fine-grained cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. As stated in the geotechnical report, the Project Site is generalized to be within a moderate liquefaction susceptibility zone.

Groundwater is believed to be deeper than 100 feet below the existing grade. Based on the lack of shallow groundwater, the dense nature of the subsurface soil, and the relatively uniform soil stratum across the site, NTS concluded that the liquefaction potential at the site is very low. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
a)iv)Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less than Significant Impact. As stated in the geotechnical report, no landslides or related features underlie or are adjacent to the Project Site. Due to the relatively level nature of the Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
39 site and surrounding areas, the potential for landslides at the Project Site is considered negligible. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Development of the approximately 4-acre Project Site would disturb more than one acre of soil and therefore, the Proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009- 0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permits requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would prescribe temporary Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control wind and water erosion during and shortly after the construction of the Proposed Project. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is relatively flat, with 20 feet of elevation differential across the site. Lateral spreading is the finite, lateral movement of gently to steeply sloping, saturated soil deposits caused by earthquake-induced liquefaction. 15 As stated
above, the potential for liquefaction at the Project Site is low. Because of the site’s relatively flat topography and low liquefaction potential, it would not be susceptible to lateral spreading.

Although the Project Site is located in an area susceptible to subsidence, it is not located in an area with active subsidence.16 Moreover, the Project Site is in a relatively flat area, so it is not susceptible to on or off-site landslides. State and City Building Codes establish engineering and construction criteria designed to mitigate potential impacts associated with unstable soils, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, soils collapse and expansive soils. Compliance with building codes would ensure that effects of these hazards are reduced to the extent feasible. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Based on NTS’s evaluation and experience with similar material types (e.g. alluvium consisting of light gray to brown, dry, medium dense to very dense, silty sands and sands), and laboratory testing, the soils encountered near the ground surface at the Project Site exhibit a very low expansion potential. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 15 Kramer, S.L. (2013). Lateral Spreading. In: Bobrowsky, P.T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Natural Hazards. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4399-4_215 16 Riverside County Information Technology. Riverside County – Map my County GIS. Accessed December 9, 2022.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
40 e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include the installation of a new septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system as sewers are available. The Proposed Project would connect to the existing sewer line in the Pierson Boulevard right-of-way. Therefore, no impact is identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Riverside County – Map my County GIS the Project Site is located in an area with a low paleontological sensitivity.17 However, there always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose paleontological resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 shall be implemented to avoid potential significant impacts to paleontological resources:

Mitigation Measure GEO-1:

In the event the contractor discovers paleontological resources or unique geological features during construction related activities, a qualified paleontological monitor shall observe all ground disturbing activities at all depths. The paleontological monitor will recover any significant fossil materials that would potentially be impacted by ground disturbing activities. To avoid construction delays, the paleontological monitor should be equipped to salvage fossils immediately as they are unearthed and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil vertebrates, in accordance with standards for such recovery established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). Recovered specimens should be prepared to a point of identification, including washing of sediments to recover smaller fossil remains. Once excavation has reached specified depths, salvage of fossil material from the sidewalls of the cut may resume.

Specimens shall be identified and curated into a museum repository with retrievable storage.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure less than significant impacts to paleontological resources occur as a result of the Proposed Project.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
17 Riverside County Information Technology. Riverside County – Map my County GIS. Accessed December 9, 2022.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
41 (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.

Many gases make up the group of pollutants that are believed to contribute to global climate change. However, three gases are currently evaluated and represent the highest concertation of GHG: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous oxide (N2O). The Proposed Project would not generate Fluorinated gases as defined by AB 32, only the GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) that are emitted by construction equipment. In July 2013, the City of Desert Hot Springs adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the development and implementation of policies and programs to reduce GHG emissions within the City (DHS 2013). The CAP is based on the directives of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. Senate Bill (SB 32) made the GHG reduction target (to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) a requirement. AB 197 gives the Legislature additional authority over CARB to ensure the most successful strategies for lowering emissions. The City General Plan plans for growth through 2040, five years before the SCAQMD’s latest Tier 4 interim efficiency target year (2035). Therefore, to evaluate the City General Plan Update’s GHG emissions against future GHG reduction goals, the General Plan Update Draft EIR adjusted the planlevel efficiency target based on the GHG reduction targets of SB 32, which sets a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order S-03-05, which sets a goal of 80 percent below levels by 2050.

The Proposed Project’s GHG emissions were screened using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.

Construction was modeled with an estimated start date in 2024 and completion date in 2025.

Construction will last approximately 14 months. Other parameters which are used to estimate construction emissions such as those associated with worker and vendor trips, and trip lengths were based on the CalEEMod defaults. The operational mobile source emissions were calculated in accordance with the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated February 21, 2023, prepared for the Proposed Project by Ganddini Group, Inc. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximatively 7,328 gross daily trips and 4,834 net daily trips. The SCAQMD identified an interim, tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions intent on capturing 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new residential or commercial projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency.18 The project's emissions were compared to the SCAQMD draft Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons CO2e per year for nonindustrial uses. Construction and operational emissions are shown in Table 11 and Table 12. 18 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
42 Table 11
Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N20
2024 66.5 0.0 0.0
2025 393.6 0.1 0.0
Total MTCO2e 398.2
Amortized over 30 years 13.3
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Annual Emissions.

Table 12
Greenhouse Gas Operational Emissions
(Metric Tons per Year)
Source/Phase CO2 CH4 N20
Area 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 113.1 0.0 0.0
Mobile 2,610.9 0.2 0.2
Waste 4.7 0.3 0.0
Water 3.2 0.0 0.0
Construction Amortized over 30
years

13.3 Total MTCO2e 2,809
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000
Significant No
Source: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Annual Emissions.

As shown in Table 11 and Table 12, the Proposed Project’s emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s screening threshold. Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Desert Hot Springs adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2013 that included policies and programs that would be effective in reducing GHG emissions within the City. The CAP is based on the directives of AB 32 and EO S-3-05 and uses a baseline GHG emission inventory from the Year 2010 to establish the City’s baseline emissions for the purposes of assessing future GHG reduction goals and forecasting GHG emissions in the future. The City’s CAP is not a qualified GHG reduction plan according to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15183.5, and, thus, cannot be used in a cumulative impacts analysis to determine significance. The General Plan contains numerous policies that are consistent with the CAP and the General Plan’s planned growth is consistent with the CAP’s policies.
19 The following analysis details how the Proposed Project is consistent with the applicable CAP policies:

LIVE-14: Increase solid waste diversion rate by an additional 10% to 78.1% by 2020 19 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
43 Policy No. Policy Statement Consistency
LIVE-14 Increase solid waste diversion rate by
an additional 10% to 78.1% by 2020
potentially through awareness
programs, recognition, tiered rate
structures, and other financial
instruments.

The Proposed Project will be required
to comply with AB 341 which includes
recycling programs that reduces waste
to landfills by up to 75% by 2020. The
Proposed Project uses that generate
four cubic yards or more of commercial
solid waste per week shall arrange for
recycling services.

WORK-4 Promote and leverage existing
incentives for efficient lighting and
educate and locally incent building
owners to eliminate any remaining T12 lamps in commercial/industrial buildings.

The Proposed Project will comply with
current Title 24 requirements for
installation of energy-efficient lighting.

A Photometric Plan shall be submitted
to the City to ensure compliance.

WORK-9 Build on and exceed current Water
Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in the
commercial/industrial sector by 15%
community-wide by 2020.

The Proposed Project would provide
61,941 SF of landscaping. All
landscape installation shall be
permanently maintained. All landscape
areas shall have automatic irrigation
systems. All landscape plans and
installations shall adhere to the City’s
design guidelines, codes, and
regulations.

BUILD-3 Promote the installation of reflective
roofing on commercial/industrial
properties in the community with
recognition for first ten early adopters.

The Proposed Project shall comply with
current Title 24 prescriptive cool roof
requirements to meet energy
compliance.

BUILD-4 Promote the voluntary Green Building
Program to prepare for enhanced Title
24 requirements and green building
standards.

The Proposed Project would be
constructed in accordance with the the
current California Green Building
Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24).

MOBILITY1Promote the lease and purchase of
250 electric vehicles in the community
with recognition and preferential
parking for participants.

The Proposed Project would provide
eight electric vehicle parking spaces.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
44 The following analysis details how the Proposed Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies:

Policy No. Policy Statement Consistency
MI-5.1 Implement development and
transportation improvements that help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing per capita Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), reducing impacts on
the City’s transportation network, and
maintaining the desired service levels
for all modes of transportation.

The Mobility and Infrastructure
Element of the General Plan plans for
safe, complete, and functional street
and utility systems. The mobility
component plans for a functional
multimodal transportation network,
including policies addressing roadway
safety, pedestrian connections, bike
and nature trails, and transit access.

As shown in Section 3.17, the
Proposed Project would be consistent
with the Mobility and Infrastructure
Element of the City General Plan.

MI-5.2 Implement sustainable transportation
and land use strategies that can
effectively reduce vehicle miles
traveled. Consider using vehicle daily
trips as the benchmark demand for
determining potential levels of parking
and vehicular congestion.

The Mobility and Infrastructure Element
of the General Plan plans for safe,
complete, and functional street and
utility systems. The mobility component
plans for a functional multimodal
transportation network, including
policies addressing roadway safety,
pedestrian connections, bike and
nature trails, and transit access. As
shown in Section 3.17, the Proposed
Project would be consistent with the
Mobility and Infrastructure Element of
the City General Plan.

MI-5.3 Support the development of a network
of public and private clean and/or
carbon-neutral fuel vehicle charging
and fueling stations.

The Proposed Project would provide 8
electric vehicle parking spaces.

MI-5.4 Consider a locally collected and
administered traffic mitigation fee
program to guarantee that new
development pays for its fair share
toward improvements resulting in
reductions in air pollutant and GHG
emissions and traffic impacts
generated by the development.

The Proposed Project shall pay
required traffic mitigation fees, if any.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
45 Therefore, construction and operation of the Proposed Project will not conflict with any applicable plan, local or regional greenhouse gas plans. Less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
(e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan had not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is a retail development that includes a fueling station, convenience store with drive-through, car wash facility, and one quick-service restaurant. Construction of the Proposed Project would require the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of limited quantities of common hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, solvents, paint, fertilizers, pesticides, and other similar materials. All materials Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
46 required during construction would be kept in compliance with State and local regulations and Best Management Practices. Operations would include standard maintenance (i.e., landscape upkeep, exterior painting and similar activities) involving the use of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, gas, oil, paint, etc.) the use of which would not create a significant hazard to the public. The proposed gas station would be required to obtain a SCAQMD Authority to Construct permit corresponding to the requirements defined in SCAQMD Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing, which would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and toxic emission from the mobile fueling operations.

The Proposed Project would involve the transport of hazardous materials to the site associated with the proposed fueling station. The transport of fuel and tank filling operations would be conducted in compliance with applicable federal and local regulatory requirements that regulate the transportation of hazardous materials, such as Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and General Plan Policy SN-3.2: Use and Storage of Hazardous Materials). The transport of hazardous materials on area roadways are regulated by the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. Transporters of hazardous wastes are required to be certified by the Department of Transportation and manifests are required to track the hazardous waste during transport.

The construction, installation, and operation of the USTs and gas station is to adhere to all regulations and requirements set forth in the 'California Code of Regulations; Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16: Underground Storage Tank Regulations.' These regulations provide mandatory product implementation and operational procedures to reduce the risk of accidental release. Some of these required appurtenances include, but are not limited to, primary and secondary containment chambers, installation of 24/7 monitoring devices, monitoring programs and reporting procedures, constant vacuum seal of the fueling system, and vapor sensors. Permitting and design of fueling system must be diligently reviewed and approved by County Programs, including the 'South Coast Air Quality Management District' and 'Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Management Branch.' The California Health and Safety Code, Statutes of Chapter 6.7, Underground Storage of Hazardous Materials provides further regulations in regard to permitting the operation of the USTs. Site design and operating procedures are to adhere to California Stormwater Quality Association standard BG-22, which requires implementation of operational BMPs to avoid above ground storm water pollution and discharge into storm drain system. Some of these operational requirements include training employees on proper leak and spill prevention and cleanup practices, and the maintenance and cleaning of the fueling area. Furthermore, an UST permit mut be obtained from the County Hazardous Materials Management Branch, which is responsible for routine inspections of fueling station operations and USTs.

Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The Public/Quasi-Public designation is intended for services and facilities, such as public schools, colleges, libraries, fire and police stations, community facilities, utility and infrastructure facilities, major drainage facilities, and government service facilities. There are Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
47 no parcels designated Public/Quasi-Public within one-quarter mile of the Project Site.20 Therefore, no schools are proposed within one-quarter mile of the Project Site. The nearest existing school to the Project Site is the Desert Hot Spring High School, located approximately

1.5-mile east of the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The Project Site was not found on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor data management system. 21 EnviroStor tracks cleanup,
permitting, enforcement and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues. A Phase I Environmental Assessment report, dated July 6, 2022, was prepared for the Proposed Project by Robin Environmental Management (REM) (see Appendix G for report). REM’s assessment identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions by practices at the Project Site and its immediate neighbors that could significantly impact the Project Site. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan had not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The General Plan Planning Area, which includes the Project Site, is not located within two miles of a public airport nor is the Planning Area located within an Airport land use plan.22 Project implementation would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people in the project area. The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Palm Springs International Airport, located approximately 9 miles south of the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial safety hazard related to airports. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is vacant and does not contain any emergency facilities. The Project Site is adjacent to Pierson Boulevard and North Indian Canyon Avenue, both of which are identified evacuation routes. 23 The Proposed Project would
not encroach upon the public right-of-way. The City and County have adopted Hazard Mitigation Plans and participate in the Riverside County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, which 20 City of Desert Hot Springs. GIS viewer.
https://deserthotsprings.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=09a2838a17c2457dbf854ec9f441c9a2.

Accessed July 1, 2022.
21 Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor database. Accessed July 6, 2022. 22 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
23 City of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. Adopted May 26, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
48 addresses an expansive set of emergency functions.24 The City also has a detailed Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) which provides the basis for the City’s emergency planning. The objective of the EOP is to incorporate and coordinate all facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency. Moreover, the Proposed Project would provide 83 parking spaces, which is more than the required 52 spaces. The proposed drive-through restaurant would provide a designated queuing reservoir that would not block aisles, driveways, or access to parking spaces. Site access for operations would be subject to approval by the City. Moreover, the Proposed Project would be subject to Approval by the County Fire Department to ensure emergency access is feasible. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact. The fundamental driver of increased wildfire risk is the introduction of people into a flammable landscape. The Project Site is surrounded by primarily vacant land and located in a relatively undeveloped area. The Project Site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
25 In addition, the Proposed Project shall comply with the 2022 California Fire Code. The Proposed Project would be subject to all conditions of approval required by the Riverside County Fire Department. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with proposed Specific Plan development standards, such as providing a minimum front setback of 15 feet, a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, and a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. The proposed development would include buildings with fire safety and fire suppression design elements, and proper landscaping, and would not exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
24 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
25 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
49 10.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flood on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project would disturb approximately 3.99 acres and is therefore subject to the NPDES permit requirements. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the NPDES. Construction activities covered under the State’s General Construction permit (CGP) include removal of vegetation, grading excavating, or any other activity that causes the disturbance of at least one acre. The CGP requires recipients to reduce or eliminate non-storm water discharges into stormwater systems, and to develop and implement a SWPPP. The purpose of the SWPPP is to:
1) identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharges of storm water associated with construction activities and 2) identify, construct, and implement storm water pollution control measures to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the Project Site during and after construction.

As part of the Whitewater River Watershed, the City is covered under the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (RCFC&WCD) Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) permit issued by the Colorado River Basin RWQCB pursuant to Order No. R7-2013-0001.26 As such, the permitting process for the Proposed Project is coordinated between the City and RCFC & WCD.

The NPDES also requires a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is subject to review and approval by the City. A preliminary WQMP, dated April 18, 2022, was prepared for the Proposed Project by Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc (see Appendix H for report). 26 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
50 The WQMP includes mandatory compliance of BMPs as well as compliance with NPDES Permit requirements. Project BMPs include, but are not limited to: using natural drainage systems; construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to minimum widths necessary; and drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios into adjacent landscaping.

Review and approval of the final WQMP by the City would ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are minimized or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the Project Site. No significant adverse impacts are identified or are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact. The Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) would provide potable water for the Proposed Project (see Appendix I – Will Serve Letter). MSWD is one of the principal water agencies in the Mission Creek and Garnet Hill subbasins (water management plan [WMP] planning area), which are part of the larger Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.
27 Groundwater is the principal source of municipal water supply in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and Desert Water Agency (DWA) with the support of the MSWD embarked on a groundwater replenishment program in 2002 using imported water. Water supplies for the WMP planning area consist of surface water that naturally replenishes the groundwater basins, groundwater extracted from wells and imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) that is exchanged for Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (Metropolitan’s) Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA).

The MSWD Water Regulations and Service Ordinance (Ordinance No. 93-3) establishes procedures and policies necessary for the orderly administration of a water conservation program to prohibit waste and restrict water during a water shortage emergency. The Ordinance also contains three stages of action for water supply shortages, which would be applicable to the Proposed Project.

Development projects under the General Plan Update that will be served by local utility providers, will not be approved if they increase water use in excess of what is identified for supply in 2040 under the most recent Urban Water Master Plan.28 Future population projections for MSWD were developed using the regional growth forecast prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments.
29 The City recognizes that future water
supplies are unreliable due to protracted drought conditions, desert environment with limited water sources, climate change impacts to water supplies, and the increasing costs and unpredictability of importing water from other regions. As a result, there are limitations to the overall development capacity in Desert Hot Springs. The General Plan recognizes these constraints and includes policies and measures to ensure adequate consultation between the City and water agencies to ensure coordination is in place when developing long-range water 27 MWH. Mission Creek and Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan. January 2013. 28 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
29 Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 30, 2021.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
51 supply plans.30 The WMP planning area is anticipated to have a water demand of 37,700 acrefeet per year by 2045.31 The Proposed Project is the development of a 9-island fueling station, a 7,460 square-foot convenience store with a drive-thru window, a 1,790 square-foot drive-thru carwash, and one 2,000 square-foot quick service restaurant on a 3.99-acre site. The Proposed Project includes approximately 61,941 square-feet of irrigated landscaping. The City would ensure that the Proposed Project is in compliance with the City of Hot Springs Development Code, Section

17.56.130, which establishes water efficient landscaping standards. The Proposed Project is anticipated to have a water demand of 949,411 gallons per year.32 The Proposed Project is anticipated to have a water demand of 10,000 gallons per day, based on a commercial demand factor of 2,500 gallons per day per acre.33 This water demand would account for approximately 0.03% 0.007% of the WMP planning area projected customer water demand by 2045.

The Project Site is currently vacant and undeveloped. With implementation of the Proposed Project, 111,863SF of the Project Site would be developed as hardscape. The predevelopment to post-development incremental increase of runoff volume is 30,433.3 CF for the 100 year, 24-hour event. The Proposed Project would retain stormwater flow within a 19,340-cubic-foot (CF) underground detention basin Implementation of the project BMPs would ensure that stormwater discharge does not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern or degrade water quality. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site would be collected in the project’s proposed underground detention basin (see 2022 preliminary WQMP) and utilized as a resource for groundwater recharge. The proposed 19,340-cubic-foot (CF) underground detention basin will be located along the mid half of the eastern border of the Project Site. Outflow from the detention basin would drain towards North Indian Canyon Road and eventually towards the Mission Creek Channel. With the proposed detention basin, peak flows would decrease by 17.62% for the 100 year, 24-hour event. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

Less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Less than Significant Impact. Erosion is the process by which soils are removed from the Project Site most commonly by wind or water. Erosion is more likely to occur if soils are left unprotected. The Project Site is currently undeveloped. The hazard of soil erosion would be reduced after construction of the Proposed Project by protecting soil via landscaping and 30 City of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. Adopted May 26, 2020. 31 MWH. Mission Creek and Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan. January 2013. 32 CalEEMod Output for the Proposed Project.
33MWH. Mission Creek and Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan. January 2013.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
52 directing stormwater runoff to an underground detention basin. NPDES permit requirements address the control of erosion and siltation. This includes the CGP which requires the effective implementation of erosion control measures. The RWQCB conducts inspections and enforces the CGP at construction sites. A SWPPP is required for construction of the Proposed Project and will include a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid and minimize soil erosion. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
ii, iii, iv) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows Less than Significant Impact. A preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study was prepared for the Proposed Project by Blue Engineering & Consulting, Inc. in September 2022 (see Appendix J). Under existing conditions, the Project Site drains northwest to southeast with a varying slope range of 1-4%. There is approximately 20 feet of elevation differential across the site. Most of the Project Site’s existing flow drains into existing Mission Creek Channel.

As discussed in the Hydrology Study, the pre-development to post-development incremental increase of runoff volume is 30,433.3 CF and the increase in peak flow is 0.356 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the 100 year, 24-hour event. The Proposed Project would develop 77% of the Project Site with hardscape. The Hydrology Study assumed that 90% of the Project Site would be developed with impervious surface. With development of the Proposed Project, peak flows would increase during storm events. The Proposed Project would retain stormwater flow within a 19,340 CF underground detention basin that will be located along the mid half of the eastern border of the Project Site. Outflow from the detention basins would drain towards North Indian Canyon Road and eventually towards the Mission Creek Channel. With the proposed detention basin, peak flows would decrease by 17.62% for the 100 year, 24-hour event.

Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact. Due to the inland distance from the Pacific Ocean (approximately 100 miles) and any other significant body of water, tsunamis and seiches are not potential hazards in the vicinity of the Project Site. As stated in the Geotechnical Engineering report, the Project Site is within a Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone AO) with a flood depth of 2 feet. However, the risk of pollutants being released from the Project Site would be mitigated via implementation of project BMPs as identified in the final City-approved WQMP. Project BMPs identified in the WQMP include, but are not limited to: using natural drainage systems; construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to minimum widths necessary; drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios into adjacent landscaping.

Furthermore, per City General Plan Policy SN-7.1, all standards of elevation and flood proofing would need to be implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Department, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the Coachella Valley Water District to assure resiliency against flooding hazards. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
53 e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires State-designated medium- and high-priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), develop groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) and manage groundwater for long-term sustainability. The SGMA 2019 Basin Prioritization identified ninety-four basins and/or sub-basins as medium or high priority and are required to form GSAs and develop GSPs. These 94 basins, in combination with adjudicated areas which have existing governance and oversight in place, account for 98 percent of the pumping (20 million acre-feet), 83 percent of the population (25 million Californians), and 88 percent of all irrigated acres (6.7 million acres) within the state’s groundwater basins.34 The MSWD pumps groundwater from both the Mission Creek Subbasin (MCSB) and Indio Subbasin.

Groundwater sustainability management plans have been adopted for both subbasins and are summarized herein.

Mission Creek Subbasins
The MCSB Alternative Plan Update35 ensures that the most current projections for population growth, land use, imported water supply, and other future conditions are incorporated into water management planning for the region. Land use within the Alternative Plan Update Planning Area is based on the Riverside County General Plan (Riverside County, 2019) and the City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. The MCSB Alternative Plan Update ensures that the most current projections for population growth, land use, imported water supply, and other future conditions are incorporated into water management planning for the region. To account for commercial/industrial growth associated with the population growth from residential development, the existing parcel data were used to establish ratios of acres between residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. These ratios were then used to establish average historical acre-feet per year (AFY) per person factors for commercial and industrial uses.

To conduct evaluation of alternative water management scenarios, a 50-year MCSB forecast model was developed using the water demand forecast, the imported water forecast, and plans for recycled water use. The Baseline scenario provides a “benchmark” for evaluating the effects of water management activities and climate change on groundwater levels in the MCSB. It is not a potential operational scenario for the MCSB. The Baseline with Climate Change scenario is the same as the Baseline scenario but assumes mountain front recharge for a 50- year period based on continuation of a 25-year period of below normal precipitation (i.e., drought) from 1995 through 2019. The Near-Term Projects with Climate Change scenario builds on the Baseline with Climate Change scenario by adding water management projects planned for implementation prior to 2035. Under this scenario, all wells remain above their Minimum Thresholds through the planning horizon and the long-term cumulative water balance is slightly positive. Conveyance of the treated wastewater from the Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) back to the MCSB for evaporation/percolation and new water 34 https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Basin-Prioritization 35 Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. November 2021.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
54 supply ranging from 233 AFY in 2023 to 265 AFY in 2045 results in a sustainable condition in the MCSB through the planning horizon.

During the development of the Alternative Plan Update, an updated City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan was adopted in May 2020 that has not yet been captured in SCAG’s growth forecast. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2020 City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update plans for higher-than-expected growth, which could result in higherthan-expected increases in water demand. While full growth is unlikely to occur over the 25- year planning horizon, the General Plan Update includes several water supply policies/mitigation measures such as consultation with local water agencies to plan for adequate supplies. In addition, the General Plan Update conveys the need to recognize any immediate water supply constraints, consider long-term availability of water in the approval of development projects, and perform a coordinated review process with local water resources management agencies. The water supply policies/mitigation measures link the City’s project approval and building permitting to the water resources agencies’ ability to manage resources consistent with approved water management plans. An additional mitigation measure identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report is for the City of Desert Hot Springs to prepare an annual report of building permits issued and land use approvals for submittal to MSWD and CVWD to allow the agencies to estimate related water use increases and identify concerns and issues regarding the adequacy of water supply for permits or approvals. These mitigation measures can lessen some of the uncertainty associated with water needs from the City of Desert Hot Springs planning area. In addition, the revised growth forecasts can be incorporated into future updates of the Alternative Plan, as appropriate.

Indio Subbasin
To provide an adequate long-range forecast of future water demands, the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update36 uses a 25-year planning period from 2020 through 2045.

This planning is subject to uncertainties and changes that could affect future water demands, including revised growth forecasts, conversions of agricultural lands to urban uses, development on Tribal lands, and long-term conservation regulations. A variety of projects and management actions (PMAs) are planned for implementation over the planning horizon (to 2045) to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin.

Total municipal demand for the Plan Area is 235,148 acre-feet (AF) in 2045, which is an increase of 71,143 AF from the 2016 baseline (i.e., 43 percent). The forecast assumes a population increase from 402,392 in 2016 to 616,048 in 2045, primarily in the cities of Coachella and Indio. The Indio Subbasin GSAs recognize that land use changes can affect water demand in the Plan Area and affect their ability to achieve and maintain sustainable groundwater management over this Alternative Plan Update’s planning and implementation horizon. Land use development is guided by land use planning agencies, including those of California cities and counties, which are required to prepare General Plans. The City of Desert Hot Springs is one of the Indio Subbasin’s pertinent land use planning agencies.

Simulation of the Baseline and Baseline with Climate Change scenarios allows direct evaluation of the effect of simulated climate change on groundwater storage. A net increase 36 Todd Groundwater and Woodard & Curran. 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Alternative Plan. Adopted December 2021.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
55 in Subbasin-wide groundwater storage is predicted for the Baseline scenario, while a net decrease in Subbasin storage is predicted for Baseline with Climate Change. This indicates that implementation of no new projects is not sustainable with climate change as simulated with recent hydrologic conditions projected into the future. Simulation of three other scenarios allows assessment of the effects of various water supply projects packaged as follows: 5-Year Plan with Climate Change, Future Projects with Climate Change, and Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change. While the Baseline with Climate Change scenario results in net groundwater storage decline, the three other scenarios show a net increase in storage at the end of the 25-year planning horizon (in 2045) and continuing stability through the end of the modeling timeframe. Simulation of the 5-Year Plan with Climate Change scenario shows that already-planned projects and management actions can maintain the water balance, even with climate change. The Future Projects with Climate Change scenario acknowledges the uncertainties that exist with regard to future water supplies, water demands, and other circumstances. This scenario also results in a stable Subbasin water balance. In addition, all three scenarios of climate change with projects indicate increased net outflow to drains. All four climate change scenarios show a net outflow to the Salton Sea, indicating no seawater intrusion.

While nothing specified in Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or contained in a Groundwater Sustainability Plan can be interpreted as superseding the land use authority of cities or counties, Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221 require that this information should be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by a city or county for projects subject to CEQA that are of a specific size. As a result, local water agencies prepare and adopt water supply assessments and written verifications of water supply availability for large developments as required by SB 610 and SB 221.

Project Impacts
The Project Site is within the Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N) land use designation and is zoned Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N). While MU-N conditionally permits convenience stores and quick-serve restaurants, it does not permit commercial uses such as fueling stations or car washes. With adoption of the Specific Plan, fueling stations and car washes would be permitted within the proposed Specific Plan MU-N (SP-MU-N) zoning designation.

Furthermore, restaurant with drive-through facilities and convenience stores would be permitted uses within this zoning. As the current zoning, proposed zoning, and proposed uses are commercial, there would be no deviation from the water demand anticipated for the Project Site. Furthermore, there are no Proposed Project features that are anticipated to interfere with the execution of water management projects. Coordination between the City and the local water agencies would ensure that the Proposed Project water demand does not substantially impact groundwater supplies.

The California Health and Safety Code, Statutes of Chapter 6.7, Underground Storage of Hazardous Materials provides further regulations in regard to permitting the operation of the USTs. Site design and operating procedures are to adhere to California Stormwater Quality Association standard BG-22, which requires implementation of operational BMPs to avoid above ground storm water pollution and discharge into storm drain system. Some of these operational requirements include training employees on proper leak and spill prevention and cleanup practices, and the maintenance and cleaning of the fueling area. Furthermore, a UST permit must be obtained from the County Hazardous Materials Management Branch, which is responsible for routine inspections of fueling station operations and USTs.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
56 The Proposed Project would disturb approximately 4 acres of undeveloped land and is therefore subject to the NPDES permit requirements. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the NPDES. Construction activities covered under the State’s CGP include removal of vegetation, grading excavating, or any other activity that causes the disturbance of at least one acre. The CGP requires recipients to reduce or eliminate nonstorm water discharges into stormwater systems, and to develop and implement a SWPPP.

Project BMPs identified in the WQMP include, but are not limited to: using natural drainage systems; construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to minimum widths necessary; drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios into adjacent landscaping. Review and approval of the final WQMP by the City would ensure minimization of potential pollutants of concern prior to being discharged from the Project Site. As stated previously, the Proposed Project would neither interfere with groundwater recharge nor have significant water demand relative to the WMP planning area’s overall water demand. Less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

11. LAND USE/PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Physically divide an established community?
(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. The Proposed Project is the development of a mixed retail uses on a currently vacant property. The Project Site is located in an undeveloped area. It is surrounded by vacant land to the north, east, and west; and an auto service shop to the south. It is bounded by North Indian Canyon Road to the east and Pierson Boulevard to the south. The physical division of an established community is typically associated with construction of a linear feature, such as a major highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local road or bridge, which would impair mobility in an existing community or between a community and an outlying area. The Proposed Project does not include the construction of a linear feature.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would neither physically divide an established community nor cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plans or policies.

No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is the development of a 9-island fueling station, a 7,460 square-foot convenience store with a drive-thru window, a 1,790 square-foot Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
57 drive-thru carwash, and a 2,000 square-foot quick service restaurant. The Project Site is within the Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N) land use designation and is zoned Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N). While MU-N conditionally permits convenience stores and quick-serve restaurants, it does not permit commercial uses such as fueling stations or car washes. When a specific plan is approved, it becomes the zoning ordinance for the planning area it covers.

With adoption of the Specific Plan (see Appendix A), fueling stations and car washes would be permitted within the proposed Specific Plan MU-N (SP-MU-N) zoning designation.

Furthermore, restaurant with drive-through facilities and convenience stores would be permitted uses within this proposed zoning.

California Government Code §65450-§65453 permits the adoption and administration of Specific Plans as an implementation tool for elements contained within the local General Plan.

The City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan provides guidance for long-term growth and development in the City through comprehensive plans for future development. Consistency with the General Plan is achieved when the various land uses within the Specific Plan are compatible with the goals, policies, and general pattern of land uses contained in the General Plan. Consistency is defined as: “An action, program, or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objects and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.” The Pierson Commercial Specific Plan is intended to ensure high quality development consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in the Desert Hot Springs General Plan. As demonstrated in Section 6 of the Specific Plan, the proposed Commercial Pierson Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City General Plan.

The Proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
58 Less than Significant Impact. The California Geological Survey has identified areas of known mineral resources within California. These areas are then further characterized as resource sectors by State Geologist in accordance with the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB). Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) are areas based on geologic and economic factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The Project Site is neither located within a regionally significant construction aggregate resource area nor a mineral resource zone.
37 Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.13 NOISE

13. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. A Noise Impact Analysis, dated March 14, 2023, was prepared for the Proposed Project by Ganddini Group, Inc. (see Appendix K for report). The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Therefore, the “A-weighted” noise scale, which weights the frequencies to which humans are sensitive, is used for measurements. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are written dB(A) or dBA. Noise standards for land use compatibility are stated in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day-Night Average Noise Level (DNL). CNEL is a 24-hour weighted average measure of community noise. CNEL is obtained by adding five decibels to sound levels in the evening (7:00 PM to 10:00PM), and by adding ten decibels to sound levels at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). This weighting accounts for the increased human sensitivity to 37 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
59 noise during the evening and nighttime hours. DNL is a very similar 24-hour average measure that weights only the nighttime hours. The equivalent continuous noise level, Leq, is a level of steady state sound that in a stated time period, and a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.

Construction Noise
Construction noise is regulated within Section 9.04.030 of the City of Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code (see Regulatory Setting section of this report). Accordingly, the project would result in a significant impact if:
• Project construction occurs outside the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM except when daylight savings time is in effect; or,
• Project construction occurs outside the hours of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM during daylight savings time; or,
• Construction activities occur at any time on Sundays
Project construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors were calculated using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology.

Modeled construction noise levels at properties with existing residential land uses are forecast to reach up to 57.5 dBA Leq southwest of the Project Site, 66.0 dBA Leq at 64150 Pierson Blvd, east of the Project Site, 55 dBA Leq northwest of the Project Site along Western Avenue, 56 dBA Leq northwest of the Project Site along Scenic Drive, and up to 53.7 dBA Leq east of the Project Site at 11750 Desert Terrace. Project construction will not occur outside of the hours outlined in Section 9.04.030 of the City of Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required. Notwithstanding the above, the best management practices (BMPs) below shall be added to project plans and in contract specifications to minimize construction noise emanating from the Proposed Project.

1. All construction equipment, whether fixed or mobile, will be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.

2. All stationary construction equipment will be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

3. As applicable, all equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use.

4. To the degree possible, equipment staging will be located in acres that create the greatest distance between construction-related noise and vibration sources and existing sensitive receptors.

5. Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment, and all other portable stationary noise sources will be directed away and shielded from existing residences in the vicinity of the project site.

Either one-inch plywood or sound blankets can be utilized for this purpose. They should reach up from the ground and block the line of sight between equipment and existing residences. The shielding should be without holes and cracks.

6. No amplified music and/or voice will be allowed on the project site.

7. Haul truck deliveries will not occur outside of the hours presented as exempt for construction per City of Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code Section 9.04.030.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
60 Stationary Source Noise
Stationary noise source standards are established within Section 17.40.180 of the City of Desert Hot Springs Municipal Code. Accordingly, the project would result in a significant impact if:
• Project operational noise exceeds the City-established noise standard at the exterior of properties located in residential areas (65 dBA Leq in residential areas); or, • Project operational noise exceeds the City-established noise standard at the interior of properties located in residential areas (45 dBA Leq in residential areas).

Noise levels at adjacent and nearby areas that are or may be developed with residential land uses were modeled using the SoundPLAN acoustical model.

Operational noise levels as proposed (with a six-foot concrete masonry wall along the northern and western property boundaries) would range between 28 and 63 dBA Leq at the property lines of modeled receptors and would not exceed exterior or interior noise ordinance standards. No mitigation is required. Considering that future residential construction will provide approximately 20 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction, project operations will also not exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Leq.

Mobile Source Noise
The City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan establishes that single-family residential land uses are considered normally acceptable in areas where outdoor noise levels in residential areas reach up to a CNEL of 60 dBA. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that the average healthy human ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA in an outdoor environment and that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact if the addition of project trips on surrounding roadways causes noise levels to increase by:
• 5 dBA in residential areas where the existing ambient noise level is less than or equal to a CNEL of 60 dBA; or,
• 3 dBA in residential areas where the existing ambient noise level exceeds a CNEL of 60 dBA.

Project Operational Mobile Source Noise
Roadway noise levels were calculated at roadways included in the Beyond Food Mart (Indian Canyon & Pierson) Traffic Impact Analysis (Ganddini Group, Inc., February 20, 2023). During operation, the Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 4,834 average daily trips (with incorporation of internal capture and pass-by trip reductions) with 177 trips during the AM peak-hour and 195 trips during the PM peak-hour. Roadway noise levels were calculated for the following scenarios:
• Existing (without Project): This scenario refers to existing year traffic noise conditions • Existing Plus Project: This scenario refers to existing year plus project traffic noise conditions.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
61 Modeled existing traffic noise levels range between 59-72 dBA CNEL and the modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 60-74 dBA CNEL at the right-of-way of each study roadway segment. The addition of project trips is not expected to change noise levels in excess of the applicable threshold at any of the study roadway segments. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

Off-Site Construction Noise
Construction truck trips would occur throughout the construction period. Given the Project Site’s proximity to the Interstate 10 Freeway and State Route 62, it is anticipated that vendor and/or haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the appropriate freeway ramps.

Indian Canyon Drive currently handles between 4,600 and 5,700 average daily vehicle trips in the vicinity of the Project Site and Pierson Boulevard handles between 3,500 and 7,000 average daily vehicle trips. The greatest number of construction-related vehicle trips per day would be during building construction at up to 117 vehicle trips per day (84 for worker trips and 33 for vendor trips).38 Therefore, vehicle traffic generated during project construction is nominal relative to existing roadway volumes and would not result in the doubling of traffic volume necessary to increase noise levels by 3 dBA. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal in inches per second. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal in vibration decibels (VdB), ref one micro-inch per second. The Federal Railroad Administration uses the abbreviation “VdB” for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibel.

The City of Desert Hot Springs has not established a threshold of significance concerning what level of groundborne vibration is considered discernable. In the absence of Cityestablished thresholds, groundborne vibration impacts are based on guidance from the Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (California Department of Transportation, 2020) (see Regulatory Setting section). Accordingly, the project would result in a significant impact if:
• Groundborne vibration levels generated by the project have the potential to cause architectural damage at nearby buildings by exceeding the following PPV:
o 0.08 in/sec at extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments o 0.10 in/sec at fragile buildings
o 0.25 in/sec at historic and some old buildings
o 0.30 in/sec at older residential structures
38 Lilburn Corporation. CalEEMod Outputs. March 2023.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
62 o 0.50 in/sec at new residential structures and modern industrial/commercial buildings.
• Groundborne vibration levels generated by the project have the potential to cause severe annoyance to people living or working in nearby buildings by exceeding a PPV of 0.4 in/sec.

Based on the groundborne vibration modeling, use of a vibratory roller is expected to generate a PPV of 0.026 in/sec and use of a bulldozer is expected to generate a PPV of 0.011 in/sec at the closest off-site building, the auto service shop located approximately 100 feet to the south of the Project Site. Other equipment anticipated to be used during project construction generate lower PPV. Therefore, groundborne vibration generated by project construction would not exceed the levels necessary to cause architectural damage or severe annoyance to persons living or working in nearby buildings. The project impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.

The most substantial sources of groundborne vibration during post-construction project operations will include the movement of passenger vehicles and trucks on paved and generally smooth surfaces. Loaded trucks generally have a PPV of 0.076 at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020), which is a substantially lower PPV than that of a vibratory roller (0.210 in/sec PPV at 25 feet). Therefore, groundborne vibration levels generated by project operation would not exceed those modeled for project construction. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The General Plan Planning Area, which includes the Project Site, is not located within two miles of a public airport nor is the Planning Area located within an Airport land use plan.39 The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Palm Springs International Airport, located approximately 9 miles south of the Project Site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 39 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
63 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Proposed Project is the development of a 9-island fueling station, a 7,460 square-foot convenience store with a drive-thru window, a 1,790 square-foot drive-thru carwash, and a 2,000 square-foot quick service restaurant. The Proposed Project would require a maximum of 19 employees, based on one employee per every 500 gross square feet for retail/commercial land use.40 Employees would come from the local labor pool.

As of January 2023, Riverside County had an unemployment rate of 4.5% (52,500 people).41 Construction activities would be temporary and would not attract new employees to the area.

The Proposed Project does not involve construction of new homes, roads, or infrastructure so it would not induce local population growth either directly or indirectly. No significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project Site is currently vacant and does not contain any residential housing that would be demolished thereby displacing any residents. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 40 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
41 California Employment Development Department. https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/geography/riversidecounty.html. Accessed April 4, 2023.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
64 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

15. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Fire Protection?
(b) Police Protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks?
(e) Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. All the fire engines that respond to emergencies in Desert Hot Springs are advanced life support (ALS) vehicles equipped to provide medical aid. All ambulance services and paramedic personnel are provided through a cooperative agreement with American Medical Response (AMR). AMR has the Emergency Medical Services contract for all of Riverside County. The City is also supported by other Riverside County fire stations and mutual aid agreements with proximate jurisdictions. Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) fire stations outside of the City can respond to fire emergencies within Desert Hot Springs, helping to further improve fire services to the community (RCFD Contract Fees), while the Hemet Ryan Air Attack Base provides support for wildland fires and other rescue operations. RCFD has a mutual aid agreement with the Palm Springs Fire Department and Cathedral City Fire Department that allows each agency to provide fire protection and emergency medical aid response services to areas within Desert Hot Springs and spheres of influence. The response time goal in the County is four minutes for the first engine in urban and suburban areas although this can fluctuate given the size of the county and relative level of development.42 RCFD Station 36, located at 11535 Karen Avenue, is approximately

0.9 mile west of the Project Site. Average travel time between RCFD Fire Station 36 and the Project Site is approximately two minutes.

Per Mitigation Measure PS-1 of the General Plan Draft EIR, if the City Council finds that additional equipment or facilities are needed, the City shall coordinate and consult with the RCFD to establish a viable funding method to provide for such facilities and equipment in a 42 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
65 manner timely to ensure existing service levels, including response times are not impacted.

The Proposed Project will also be required to comply with the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) requirements to assist in the funding of fire protection services. In addition, the Proposed Project is subject to review and approval by the Riverside County Fire Department. Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Desert Hot Springs Police Department (DHSPD) provides police services for the City. The City monitors resource and service adequacy primarily by evaluating response times. Additionally, the City monitors adequacy based on officer to citizen ratios. Through this ongoing monitoring process, the City will determine when additional law enforcement/public safety services are needed and when/where to program construction of any new facilities that may be warranted. The DHSPD Police Station, located at 65950 Pierson Boulevard, is approximately 1.9 miles east of the Project Site. The development of the Proposed Project could increase the demand for police services to the local area when compared to existing conditions. The Project Applicant would be required to pay Development Impact Fees used to increase funding to assist in reducing impacts to police protection services. Furthermore, the Proposed Project is subject to review and approval by the DHSPD.

Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
No Impact. The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the Palm Springs Unified School District. The increase in employment from the Proposed Project is anticipated to be fulfilled by the local labor pool. The Proposed Project does not include development of new housing. It is not anticipated to result in an increase in population growth within the area, and therefore would not increase the number of students. The Project Applicant will be required to pay applicable development fees in support of public school facilities. This fee will be sufficient in mitigating potential impacts of the Proposed Project on schools. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
66 impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?

No Impact. A significant impact generally occurs if a proposed development includes substantial population growth through residential development that could generate an increased demand in recreational and park facilities. No increase in the City’s population is anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would be no need for new or physically altered park facilities. No impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
No Impact. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on public facilities/services because an increase in the City’s population is not anticipated with the Proposed Project. In addition, the Project Applicant’s payment of development impact fees will mitigate any potential impacts on public services. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.16 RECREATION

16. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include development of new housing that would contribute to an increase in the local population. The implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to induce population growth. As a result, the Proposed Project would not lead to substantial physical deterioration of neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. It would not require the construction or expansion of park or other recreational facilities to meet demands. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
67 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Proposed Project does not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities to meet demands of residential development. Therefore, no impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

17. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
(b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
s § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), dated February 21, 2023, was prepared for the Proposed Project by Ganddini Group, Inc. (see Appendix L for report). The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 4,834 new daily trips.

The Mobility and Infrastructure Element of the General Plan plans for safe, complete, and functional street and utility systems. The mobility component plans for a functional multimodal transportation network, including policies addressing roadway safety, pedestrian connections, bike and nature trails, and transit access—all designed to provide for the movement of people and goods throughout Desert Hot Springs and to destinations outside the City. The primary goal of transportation planning is to provide efficient, safe travel routes for all mobility modes.

A secondary goal, although no less a priority, is to reduce the pollutant loads associated with fossil fuel combustion from vehicles on the roadway. The following details how the Proposed Project would be consistent with the relevant policies of the Mobility and Infrastructure Element:

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
68 Policy No. Policy Statement Consistency
MI-1.1 Establish and maintain a multimodal
mobility plan which sets forth improvement
plans and project prioritization for a variety
of modes and users of the transportation
network.

The Proposed Project is a local-serving
retail project. 6-foot-wide sidewalks are
proposed along the Project Site frontage of
Pierson Boulevard and North Indian
Canyon Road. Therefore, sidewalks would
provide pedestrian access into the Project
Site. The Proposed Project would provide a
bike rack adjacent to the proposed car wash
facility. The segments of Pierson Boulevard
and North Indian Canyon Road adjacent to
the Project Site are identified as potential
future bus routes.43 Furthermore, the
segment of Pierson Boulevard adjacent to
the Project Site is identified as a potential
buffered bike lane.44 The Proposed Project
shall be designed so that 110-feet is
dedicated to the North Indian Canyon Road
right-of-way and 80-feet is dedicated to the
Pierson Boulevard right-of-way. These
dedications would ensure that the Proposed
Project would not interfere with potential
multi-modal facilities along the Project Site.

MI-2.4 Identify and evaluate the system for
potential improvements to accommodate
seniors and disabled persons and to
comply with ADA requirements.

The Proposed Project shall provide four
handicap parking spaces. Moreover, a 5-
foot handicap path of travel is proposed
along Pierson Boulevard to provide project
access. Handicap ramps are provided all
throughout the Project Site to provide
access from the proposed parking lots and
into the proposed buildings.

MI-2.6 Use available public rights-of-ways to
provide wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, trail
facilities, and transit amenities.

As stated previously, the Proposed Project
shall be designed so that 110-feet is
dedicated to the North Indian Canyon Road
right-of-way and 80-feet is dedicated to the
Pierson Boulevard right-of-way. These
dedications would ensure that the Proposed
Project would not interfere with potential
multi-modal facilities, including sidewalks,
bicycle lanes, trail facilities, and transit
amenities along the Project Site. 6-footwide sidewalks are proposed along the Project Site frontage of Pierson Boulevard
and North Indian Canyon Road and would
provide pedestrian access into the Project
Site.
43 City of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. Adopted May 26, 2020. 44 City of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. Adopted May 26, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
69 Policy No. Policy Statement Consistency
MI-4.1 Recognize walking as a component of
every trip and ensure high quality
pedestrian access in all site planning and
public right-of-way modifications to provide
a safe and comfortable walking
environment.

Along the Project Site frontage of Pierson
Boulevard and North Indian Canyon Road
6-foot-wide sidewalks are proposed to
would provide pedestrian access into the
Project Site. Furthermore, sidewalks are
proposed all throughout the Project Site so
that all proposed facilities are accessible to
pedestrians.

MI-4.3 Require that new developments increase
connectivity through direct and safe
pedestrian and bicycling connections to
the established network.

The Proposed Project is a local-serving
retail. Along the Project Site frontage of
Pierson Boulevard and North Indian
Canyon Road 6-foot-wide sidewalks are
proposed to provide pedestrian access into
the Project Site.

MI-4.4 Require parking lots to include clearly
defined paths for pedestrians’ safe and
convenient access from building entrances
and to adjoining public sidewalks.
6-foot-wide sidewalks are proposed along
the Project Site frontage of Pierson
Boulevard and North Indian Canyon Road.

Furthermore, sidewalks are proposed all
throughout the Project Site so that all
proposed facilities are accessible to
pedestrians.

MI-5.1 Implement development and
transportation improvements that help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
reducing per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT), reducing impacts on the City’s
transportation network, and maintaining
the desired service levels for all modes of
transportation.

VMT-related project impacts are discussed
in response b below.

MI-5.2 Implement sustainable transportation and
land use strategies that can effectively
reduce vehicle miles traveled. Consider
using vehicle daily trips as the benchmark
demand for determining potential levels of
parking and vehicular congestion.

VMT-related project impacts are discussed
in response b below.

MI-5.3 Support the development of a network of
public and private clean and/or carbonneutral fuel vehicle charging and fueling stations.

The Proposed Project would provide 8
electric vehicle parking spaces.

MI-5.4 Consider a locally collected and
administered traffic mitigation fee program
to guarantee that new development pays
for its fair share toward improvements
resulting in reductions in air pollutant and
GHG emissions and traffic impacts
generated by the development.

The Proposed Project shall pay required
traffic mitigation fees, if any.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
70 Policy No. Policy Statement Consistency
MI-7.3 Require that development projects include
amenities to support public transit use,
such as bus stop shelters, space for transit
vehicles, and pedestrian amenities such as
trash receptacles, signage, seating,
shelters, and lighting.

Not applicable as there are no transit lines
passing along the Project Site.45 However,
the Proposed Project would provide the
required right-of-way dedications that would
allow for future multi-modal facilities.

As shown above, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Mobility and Infrastructure Element of the City General Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines s § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The amended CEQA Guidelines, specifically Section 15064.3, recommend the use of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) as the primary metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts associated with land use and transportation projects. In general terms, VMT quantifies the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project or region. A VMT Screening Assessment, dated August 3, 2022, was prepared for the Proposed Project by Ganddini Group, Inc. (see Appendix M for report).

Transportation assessments within the City of Desert Hot Springs use the County of Riverside Transportation Guidelines. The County Guidelines identifies local-serving retail land uses as presumed to have less than significant VMT impacts for the retail portion of the project. For the determination of local-serving, the retail land use should not exceed 50,000 square feet of gross floor area. The Proposed Project consists of less than 50,000 square feet of local serving retail uses; therefore, the Proposed Project satisfies the County-established retail project site plan screening criteria and may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact.

Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not adjacent to windy roads or dangerous intersections. The Proposed Project is the development of a gas station, convenience store with drive-thru, a car wash facility, and one quick-service restaurant on a currently vacant property. Improvements will be required for both Pierson Boulevard and North Indian Canyon Drive. Improvements, including added width and sidewalks, will be made to the two roadways to bring the rights-of-way up to the standards of the Desert Hot Springs General Plan. The Proposed Project would include traffic signal installation for the Indian Canyon Drive at Pierson Boulevard intersection. It does not include a geometric design or incompatible uses that would substantially increase hazards. Furthermore, the Riverside County Fire Department and Desert Hot Springs Police Department will review the proposed site plan to 45 https://sunline.org/sites/default/files/Final-System-Map-Jan-2023-WEB.pdf Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
71 ensure that all safety design features and measures related to emergency access and geometric design are compliant with existing standards prior to final project approval.

Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. There are two proposed project access points off Indian Canyon Drive and one access point off Pierson Boulevard. Primary project ingress and egress will occur at the 45-foot-wide entrance at the mid-point of the site on Indian Canyon Drive.

The other two proposed driveways would be 35-feet wide. The driveways would be wide enough to allow evacuation and emergency vehicles simultaneous access. Internal circulation will be provided by private driveways, connecting all proposed buildings to the entry and exit points. The internal driveways are 26 feet wide and will function as fire lanes for the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would provide 83 parking spaces. The provided parking stalls would be more than the 52 parking spaces required for the Proposed Project. Therefore, vehicles are expected to park on-site and would not interfere with off-site traffic. The Proposed Project would require approval by the Desert Hot Springs Fire Department to maintain adequate emergency access. Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section §21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined
in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
72 Impact Analysis
i) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in a listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in a well-studied area with 32 previous cultural resource studies having been conducted within a one-mile radius. During the course of these studies, only three cultural resource properties have been recorded, none of which involved the Project Site. One site, located within one half mile, was recorded as fragments of a possible rock circle that could either be of prehistoric origin or the result of natural environment activity. No cultural resources of prehistoric (Native American) or historical origin were observed within the property boundaries during the field survey.

A search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project Site was completed by the NAHC. Based on the provided USGS quadrangle information, the search had negative results. Responses to the 20 project scoping letters sent by Jean A. Keller have been received from the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The Torres Martinez Cultural Committee determined that the Project Site is outside of their Traditional Prehistoric Settlement Pattern and deferred to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI). The Quechan Historic Preservation Office stated that they do not wish to provide any comments. The ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) determined that the Project Site is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation, although it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area.

For this reason, Mitigation Measure TCR-1, as identified below shall be implemented to address potential significant impacts.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1:

A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from Eastern Information Center; a cultural resources inventory of the project area by a qualified archaeologist; and copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with the project shall be provided to Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Historic Preservation Office. In addition, an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be present during any ground-disturbing activities.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
ii) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. California Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) was approved by Governor Brown on September 25, 2014. AB52 specifies that CEQA projects with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource may have a significant effect on the environment. As such, the bill requires Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
73 lead agency consultation with California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a Proposed Project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed of proposed projects in that geographic area. The legislation further requires that the tribe-requested consultation be completed prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project.

Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires cities and counties to conduct consultations with California Native American tribes before the local officials adopt or amend their general plans. These consultations are for preserving or mitigating impacts to Native American historic, cultural, sacred sites, features, and objects located within the city or county.

On May 30, 2023, AB 52 and SB 18 notification letters were sent to 14 Native American tribal governments or designated tribal representatives via certified mail. Of the 14 tribes or tribal representatives,, three responses were received. Responses and consultation requests were received from the following tribe:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) stated that the Project Site is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. Therefore, ACBI requests formal government to government consultation under SB 18 and AB 52, and that Mitigation Measures TCR-2 to TCR-4 be implemented. In a letter dated June 26, 2023, the ACBCI has stated that the standard mitigation measures included in this document were sufficient. AB52 and SB 18 consultation efforts are therefore concluded.
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) stated that the Project Site exists within Serrano ancestral territory and, therefore, is of interest to the Tribe. However, due to the nature and location of the Proposed Project, and given the Cultural Resources Management Department’s present state of knowledge, YSMN does not have any concerns with the Proposed Project’s implementation, as planned, as of the time of writing their letter. YSMN requests that Mitigation Measures TCR-5 to TCR-9 be implemented. • Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians has determined that the Project Site is outside of the known Chemehuevi Traditional Use Area. They have deferred to other tribes.

No additional responses or requests were received. The City of Desert Hot Springs, as lead agency, has fulfilled its obligations under AB 52 and SB18 to engage in tribal consultation with all other tribal governments. Mitigation Measures TCR-2 through TCR-9 shall be implemented to avoid significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources.

Mitigation Measure TCR-2:

A cultural resources inventory of the Project Site shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist prior to any development activities in this area.

Mitigation Measure TCR-3:

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
74 Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with the Proposed Project shall be provided to ACBCI.

Mitigation Measure TCR-4:

An approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction be halted and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

Mitigation Measure TCR-5:

In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find.

Work on the other portions of the Project Site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-8, regarding any pre-contact and/or historic-era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

Mitigation Measure TCR-6:

If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the qualified archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-5. The qualified archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.

Mitigation Measure TCR-7:

If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

Mitigation Measure TCR-8:

The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in TCR-5, of any pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.

Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
75 coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the Proposed Project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

Mitigation Measure TCR-9:

Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the Proposed Project.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-2 through TCR-9, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

19. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment, or storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
(e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid wastes?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or expansion of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The development is located within the service area of the Mission Springs Water District for sewer service. The Proposed Project will connect to the existing sewer line in the Pierson Boulevard right-of-way. Wastewater will be conveyed to and Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
76 treated at the Alan L. Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Project Site is also located within the service area of Mission Springs Water District for domestic water. The Proposed Project will connect to existing water distribution mains in the Pierson Boulevard and Indian Canyon Drive rights-of-way. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or existing facilities (see Appendix I).

Curbs are proposed along the portions of Indian Canyon Drive and Pierson Boulevard adjacent to the Project Site. The Proposed Project proposes to retain flow in a 19,340 CF underground detention basin that will be located on site. Outflow from the basin will drain towards Indian Canyon Drive and eventually to the Mission Creek Channel. Therefore, no construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities are required with implementation of the Proposed Project.

The site will receive electricity from Southern California Edison via the existing power line on Pierson Boulevard. The estimated increase in electricity demand from the Proposed Project would represent a 0.009% of the overall 2021 County non-residential consumption ((refer to

3.6 a)). Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of electric power facilities.

The Project Site would not require any natural gas. Therefore, no connections to natural gas pipelines are proposed.

Frontier Communications will provide telecommunications services. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to require the expansion or construction of new communications systems facilities.

Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) would provide potable water for the Proposed Project. MSWD is one of the six urban water suppliers that serve customers in the Coachella Valley region. The 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) has been prepared on behalf of the six urban water suppliers that serve customers in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is used by all six agencies as their primary source of supply for meeting municipal water demands (water used for typical household, business, and local government use). The basin provides storage to help meet demand even in dry years. In a typical year, groundwater pumping is more than the amount of local rain and mountain snowmelt. In addition to groundwater, some of the water providers use local stream water, and some have recycled water systems to provide highly treated wastewater for irrigation. Imported water is used for groundwater replenishment and meeting nonurban demands.

The reliability of the MSWD’s water supply is dependent on the reliability of groundwater supplies, supplemented by imported surface water used for groundwater replenishment and the planned implementation of recycled water supply. MSWD’s ability to meet demands is Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
77 determined by an analysis of the projected available water supplies within MSWD’s water service area. As summarized in the RUWMP, the normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year urban water supply for MSWD is 100 percent reliable. 46 The RUWMP participating
agencies collaborate on groundwater management plans for long-term sustainability. During a normal year, single-dry year, or five-dry year period, the agencies could produce additional groundwater if demands exceeded the estimates.

Each agency provides a summary of their current water demands (the amount of water customers are using) and their projected water use through 2045. These projections were developed considering variables like climate, population growth, and customer behaviors.

The MSWD’s demand projections were based on the regional growth forecast prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as part of their regional transportation plan. SCAG’s most recent transportation plan is referred to as Connect SoCal.

SCAG gathered input from cities and counties throughout Southern California about expected growth and development for the next 25 years and incorporated the land use designations in each jurisdiction’s General Plan. The Project Site is designated Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N) in the General Plan.

The Mixed-Use designation is intended to allow for a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses within a single development, with either horizontal or vertical integration.

The Proposed Project is the development of a fueling station, convenience store drive-thru carwash, and quick service restaurant on a 3.99-acre lot. The proposed uses not currently permitted under the General Plan zoning of MU-N are still commercial in nature. In addition, the development standards required for the MU-N zoning under the General Plan would be applicable to the Proposed Project under the Specific Plan. The Coachella Valley RUWMP projected water use was based on demand projections in the draft Alternative Plan Updates for Indio Subbasin and Mission Creek Subbasin,
47 which estimated 1.68 acre-feet per year of
water consumption per commercial acre. Therefore, the Project Site is allocated 6.72 acrefeet per year or 2,189,718 gallons per year. The Proposed Project is anticipated to have a water demand of 949,411 gallons per year.48 Therefore, project water demand would be less than what is anticipated for the Project Site included in MSWD’s demand projections.

Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant (Horton WWTP), located on Verbena Drive approximately ½ mile south of Two Bunch Palms Trail, has a capacity of

2.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and it is the primary wastewater treatment facility for MSWD; 46 Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 30, 2021. 47 Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 30, 2021. 48 CalEEMod Output for the Proposed Project.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
78 the average amount of wastewater treated in 2015 was 1.69 mgd. 49 Development of the
MSWD-proposed West Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WVWRP) will help to increase the capacity at the Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant by diverting a portion of the existing served areas to the proposed WVWRF.50 The new WVWRP facilities will be developed to accommodate future expansions and upgrades to produce effluent to meet recycled water standards. The WVWRF will be designed with the possibility to scale capacity up to 20 mgd; Planning Areawide generation rates would result in 11.54 mgd of wastewater (within the WVWRF buildout capacity of 20 mgd). The Proposed Project is anticipated to have a throughtput of 4,800 gpd of wastewater.51 Per General Plan Policy MI-11.15, the Project Applicant would be required to consult with MSWD regarding adequate treatment capacity and pay their share of costs for localized wastewater infrastructure upgrades to ensure that service levels are met.52 Therefore, less than significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. Desert Valley Disposal (DVD) provides solid waste collection services through a franchise agreement with the City of Desert Hot Springs. DVD takes collected waste to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, where it is transported to the Lamb Canyon facility for further processing.
53 This landfill is operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR). As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the RCDWR ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The 15-year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year as part of the annual reporting requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP).

Lamb Canyon Landfill currently has a maximum permitted throughput of 5,000 tons per day.54 As of January 8, 2015, the landfill had a remaining capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards. The Proposed Project would require approximately 19 employees. It is anticipated to generate 200 pounds of solid waste per day, or 0.1 ton per day, based on 10.53 pounds per employee per day.
55 The project-generated waste equates to 0.002 percent of the permitted daily throughput for the landfill. Waste generated from the Proposed Project is not expected to significantly impact the capacity of solid waste collection systems. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 49 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
50 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
51 Based on factor of 1200 gpd per acre for commercial uses. County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Table 4.19-BJ. February 2015.
52 City of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. Adopted May 26, 2020. 53 Desert Valley Disposal. https://www.desertvalleydisposal.com/business/landfill.htm. Accessed March 13, 2023. 54 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details for Antelope Valley Public Landfill (19-AA-5624). Accessed March 13, 2023. 55 CalRecyle. Commercial Sector Generation Rates. Accessed April 12, 2022.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
79 e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. The purpose of California Assembly Bill 341 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste from landfills by recycling.

The Proposed Project uses that generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week shall arrange for recycling services. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with AB 939, which requires a minimum of 50 percent of all construction waste and debris to be recycled. This mandatory requirement would ensure that impacts related to construction waste would be less than significant. The City Public Works Engineering and Operations department shall ensure compliance. No significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.20 WILDFIRE

20. WILDFIRE.

If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
(c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
(d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Impact Analysis
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.56 The property is vacant and does not contain any emergency facilities. The Project Site is adjacent to Pierson Boulevard and North Indian Canyon Avenue, both of which are identified evacuation routes.57 The Proposed Project would not encroach upon the public rightof-way. The City and County have adopted Hazard Mitigation Plans and participate in the 56 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
57 City of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. Adopted May 26, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
80 Riverside County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, which addresses an expansive set of emergency functions.58 The City also has a detailed Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) which provides the basis for the City’s emergency planning. The objective of the EOP is to incorporate and coordinate all facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to any emergency. Moreover, the Proposed Project would provide 83 parking spaces, which is more than the required 52 spaces. The proposed drive-through facilities would provide a designated queuing reservoir that does not block aisles, driveways, or access to parking spaces. Site access for operations would be subject to approval of the Site Plan review by the City. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated previously, the Project Site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. In addition, the Proposed Project shall comply with the 2022 California Fire Code and is subject to all conditions of approval required by the Riverside County Fire Department. The fundamental driver of increased wildfire risk is the introduction of people into a flammable landscape. The Project Site is surrounded primarily vacant land and located in a relatively undeveloped area. The Project Site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone.59 In addition, the Proposed Project shall comply with the 2022 California Fire Code. Moreover, the Proposed Project is subject to all conditions of approval required by the Riverside County Fire Department. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, such as providing a minimum front setback of 15 feet, a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, and a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. The proposed development would include buildings with fire safety and fire suppression design elements, and proper landscaping, so as to not exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.
c) Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than Significant Impact. As stated previously, the Project Site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Proposed Project may include the installation of utilities; however, installation, operation and maintenance of utilities would be in compliance with fire safety regulations. The building setbacks required for the Proposed Project would minimize the spread of fire within the Project Site, if it were to occur. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required. 58 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.
59 City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
81 d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project Site is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project Site and its immediate vicinity are relatively flat and are not subject to postfire slope instability. The implementation of associated storm water BMPs will ensure that the Proposed Project appropriately conveys storm water runoff without affecting upstream or downstream drainage characteristics. As a result, the Proposed Project will not expose people or structure to significant risks, such as downslope flooding or landslides. Therefore, less than significant impacts are identified or anticipated, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
(a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
(b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects?)
(c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact Analysis
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Resources Assessment report was prepared for the Proposed Project. Based on the literature review and personal observations made in the immediate vicinity, no State and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented/or expected to occur within the Project Site.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
82 Additionally, no plant species with the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on-site or documented/expected to occur on-site. Sensitive species were considered absent from the Project Site. Because the Project Site and immediate surrounding area contain habitat suitable for nesting birds, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 shall be implemented to ensure there are no potential significant impacts.

A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation was conducted for the Proposed Project. No cultural resources of prehistoric (Native American) or historical origin were observed within the boundaries of the Project Site during the Phase I field survey. The probability of a subsurface cultural deposit existing within the property boundaries is very low. Therefore, neither further research nor archaeological grading monitoring is recommended. However, there always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2, and TCR-1 through TCR-9 shall be implemented to avoid potential significant impacts to historical resources.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual affects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, developments taking place over a period. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 (a) and (b), states:
(a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.

Air Quality
As stated in Section 3.3- Air Quality, project construction and operational emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Development of the Proposed Project will be conditioned to comply with current SCAQMD rules and regulations to minimize impacts to air quality as discussed. Therefore, cumulative impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas
Greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative in nature, in that, no one single project can measurably contribute to climate change and its affects (global average change in temperature, rising sea levels etc.). The direct or indirect GHG impacts are therefore not evaluated on a local level, but whether or not the GHG emissions resulting from the project Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
83 are cumulative; that is, they add considerably to an increase in GHGs as compared to the existing environmental setting based on: 1) an established significance threshold(s); or 2) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.

As summarized previously, the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions fall below the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year and the Proposed Project is in compliance with the reduction goals AB 32 and SB 32. Furthermore, all of the post-2020 reductions in GHG emissions are addressed via regulatory requirements at the State level and the Proposed Project will be required to comply with these regulations as they come into effect. Moreover, as discussed previously, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the CAP. As such, the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on climate change would not be cumulatively considerable.

Therefore, impacts associated with the Proposed Project would not be considered cumulatively considerable. A less than significant impact would occur. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact. Impacts related to construction noise will be minimized with adherence to applicable Municipal Ordinances. The Proposed Project does not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational emissions. However, the Project Proponent would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, such as Rules 402 nuisance and 403 fugitive dust during construction and Rules 201, 202 and 1138 during operations. The proposed gas station would be required to obtain a SCAQMD Authority to Construct permit corresponding to the requirements defined in SCAQMD Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing, which would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds and toxic emission from the mobile fueling operations.

The Project Site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is the case for all of Southern California. The County of Riverside adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which requires that the construction of structures be in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) to reduce the hazard risks posed by earthquakes. Adhering to these codes and incorporating the recommendations listed in the geotechnical report can reduce potential ground-shaking impacts to less than significant levels.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
84 SECTION 4.0 – REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed July 1, 2022.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor database. Accessed July 6, 2022.

California Employment Development Department.
https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/geography/riverside-county.html. Accessed April 4, 2023.

CalRecyle. Commercial Sector Generation Rates. Accessed April 12, 2022.

CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details for Antelope Valley Public Landfill (19-AA-5624).

Accessed March 13, 2023.

City of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan. Adopted May 26, 2020.

City of Desert Hot Springs. Draft EIR for Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update and Zoning Amendment. February 14, 2020.

City of Desert Hot Springs. GIS viewer.
https://deserthotsprings.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=09a2838a17c2457 dbf854ec9f441c9a2. Accessed periodically.

MWH. Mission Creek and Garnet Hill Subbasins Water Management Plan. January 2013.

Palm Springs Unified School District. https://www.psusd.us/Page/2400. Accessed April 12, 2022.

Riverside County. General Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 521. Table 4.19-BJ. February 2015.

Riverside County Information Technology. Riverside County – Map my County GIS. Accessed periodically.

Water Systems Consulting, Inc. 2020 Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 30, 2021.

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Mission Creek Subbasin Alternative Plan Update. November 2021.

4.1 PROJECT-SPECIFIC REFERENCES
Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Preliminary Hydrology & Hydraulics Study. September 2022.

Item Number: 1.

Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
SP 22-4, DP 22-8 & ENV 23-3
August 2024
85 Blue Engineering and Consulting, Inc. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan. April 18, 2022.

Ganddini Group, Inc. Beyond Food Mart (Indian Canyon & Pierson) Noise Impact Analysis.

August 21, 2023.

Ganddini Group, Inc. Beyond Food Mart (Indian Canyon & Pierson) Traffic Impact Analysis.

March 27, 2023.

Ganddini Group, Inc. Beyond Food Mart (Indian Canyon & Pierson) VMT Screening Assessment. August 3, 2022.

Jennings Environmental, LLC. Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation, and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis for the New Commercial Development Project on the NWC of Indian Canyon and Pierson Blvd. report. July 2022, Updated August 2023.

Jean A. Keller. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Specific Plan No. 22-4. August, 2022, Revised July 2023.

Lilburn Corporation. CalEEMod Output for Beyond Food Mart. April 12, 2024.

NTS Geotechnical, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report. July 29, 2022.

Robin Environmental Management. Phase I Environmental Assessment report. July 6, 2022.

Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc. Pierson Commercial Specific Plan. March 2023 Item Number: 1.

Beyond Desert Hot Springs
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual
Project Characteristics - .

Land Use - Per TIA
Construction Phase -
Vehicle Trips - Per TIA; carwash trips added to convenience market with gas pumps land use; internal capture trips counted as pass by Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 61.94 1000sqft 1.42 61,941.00 0 Parking Lot 155.00 1000sqft 3.56 155,000.00 0
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 2.00 1000sqft 0.05 2,000.00 0 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 18.00 Pump 0.37 15,968.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
531.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 61,940.00 61,941.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,541.15 15,968.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.37
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 531.98
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 21.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 21.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 65.00 32.86
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 50.00 42.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 14.00 67.14
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 29.00 58.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 616.12 467.50
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 472.58 467.50
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 470.95 467.50
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.0420 0.4026 0.3678 7.6000e0040.1775 0.0175 0.1950 0.0870 0.0162 0.1032 0.0000 66.5486 66.5486 0.0176 6.5000e00467.1805 2025 0.4776 1.5913 2.1973 4.4600e0030.1103 0.0633 0.1736 0.0298 0.0595 0.0893 0.0000 393.5944 393.5944 0.0681 9.8700e003398.2384 Maximum 0.4776 1.5913 2.1973 4.4600e0030.1775 0.0633 0.1950 0.0870 0.0595 0.1032 0.0000 393.5944 393.5944 0.0681 9.8700e003398.2384 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.0420 0.4026 0.3678 7.6000e0040.0845 0.0175 0.1020 0.0404 0.0162 0.0566 0.0000 66.5485 66.5485 0.0176 6.5000e00467.1804 2025 0.4776 1.5913 2.1973 4.4600e0030.1103 0.0633 0.1736 0.0298 0.0595 0.0893 0.0000 393.5941 393.5941 0.0681 9.8700e003398.2381 Maximum 0.4776 1.5913 2.1973 4.4600e0030.1103 0.0633 0.1736 0.0404 0.0595 0.0893 0.0000 393.5941 393.5941 0.0681 9.8700e003398.2381 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.31 0.00 25.23 39.91 0.00 24.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 11-1-2024 1-31-2025 0.6202 0.6202
2 2-1-2025 4-30-2025 0.4897 0.4897
3 5-1-2025 7-31-2025 0.5052 0.5052
4 8-1-2025 9-30-2025 0.3350 0.3350
Highest 0.6202 0.6202

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1128 2.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003 Energy 3.1300e0030.0285 0.0239 1.7000e0042.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 113.1194 113.1194 5.6900e0031.1900e003113.6149 Mobile 2.1964 2.3804 15.3564 0.0282 3.0334 0.0245 3.0579 0.8102 0.0229 0.8331 0.0000 2,610.913 9 2,610.913
9 0.2074 0.1690 2,666.447
7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.6769 0.0000 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2523 2.9120 3.1643 0.0261 6.3000e0044.0056 Total 2.3122 2.4089 15.3824 0.0284 3.0334 0.0267 3.0601 0.8102 0.0251 0.8353 4.9292 2,726.949 6 2,731.878
8 0.5156 0.1708 2,795.659
5 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.1128 2.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003 Energy 3.1300e0030.0285 0.0239 1.7000e0042.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 113.1194 113.1194 5.6900e0031.1900e003113.6149 Mobile 2.1964 2.3804 15.3564 0.0282 3.0334 0.0245 3.0579 0.8102 0.0229 0.8331 0.0000 2,610.913 9 2,610.913
9 0.2074 0.1690 2,666.447
7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.6769 0.0000 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2523 2.9120 3.1643 0.0261 6.3000e0044.0056 Total 2.3122 2.4089 15.3824 0.0284 3.0334 0.0267 3.0601 0.8102 0.0251 0.8353 4.9292 2,726.949 6 2,731.878
8 0.5156 0.1708 2,795.659
5 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/1/2024 11/14/2024 5 10 2 Grading Grading 11/15/2024 12/12/2024 5 20
3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/13/2024 10/30/2025 5 230 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

4 Paving Paving 10/31/2025 11/27/2025 5 20
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/28/2025 12/25/2025 5 20 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 26,952; Non-Residential Outdoor: 8,984; Striped Parking Area: 13,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 4.98
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0983 0.0000 0.0983 0.0505 0.0000 0.0505 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0046.1500e0036.1500e0035.6600e0035.6600e0030.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 Total 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0040.0983 6.1500e0030.1044 0.0505 5.6600e0030.0562 0.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 97.00 39.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 19.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3000e0041.5000e0042.0800e0031.0000e0057.4000e0040.0000 7.4000e0042.0000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.5489 0.5489 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5537 Total 2.3000e0041.5000e0042.0800e0031.0000e0057.4000e0040.0000 7.4000e0042.0000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.5489 0.5489 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5537 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0442 0.0000 0.0442 0.0227 0.0000 0.0227 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0046.1500e0036.1500e0035.6500e0035.6500e0030.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 Total 0.0133 0.1359 0.0917 1.9000e0040.0442 6.1500e0030.0504 0.0227 5.6500e0030.0284 0.0000 16.7285 16.7285 5.4100e0030.0000 16.8638 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.3000e0041.5000e0042.0800e0031.0000e0057.4000e0040.0000 7.4000e0042.0000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.5489 0.5489 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5537 Total 2.3000e0041.5000e0042.0800e0031.0000e0057.4000e0040.0000 7.4000e0042.0000e0040.0000 2.0000e0040.0000 0.5489 0.5489 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.5537 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0708 0.0000 0.0708 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0166 0.1703 0.1476 3.0000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0036.6600e0036.6600e0030.0000 26.0639 26.0639 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2747 Total 0.0166 0.1703 0.1476 3.0000e0040.0708 7.2400e0030.0781 0.0343 6.6600e0030.0409 0.0000 26.0639 26.0639 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2747 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e0042.6000e0043.4700e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9148 0.9148 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9229 Total 3.8000e0042.6000e0043.4700e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9148 0.9148 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9229 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0319 0.0000 0.0319 0.0154 0.0000 0.0154 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0166 0.1703 0.1476 3.0000e0047.2400e0037.2400e0036.6600e0036.6600e0030.0000 26.0639 26.0639 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2746 Total 0.0166 0.1703 0.1476 3.0000e0040.0319 7.2400e0030.0391 0.0154 6.6600e0030.0221 0.0000 26.0639 26.0639 8.4300e0030.0000 26.2746 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e0042.6000e0043.4700e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9148 0.9148 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9229 Total 3.8000e0042.6000e0043.4700e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.9148 0.9148 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.9229 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.5700e0030.0874 0.1051 1.8000e0043.9900e0033.9900e0033.7500e0033.7500e0030.0000 15.0702 15.0702 3.5600e0030.0000 15.1593 Total 9.5700e0030.0874 0.1051 1.8000e0043.9900e0033.9900e0033.7500e0033.7500e0030.0000 15.0702 15.0702 3.5600e0030.0000 15.1593 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5000e0047.5100e0033.2700e0034.0000e0051.2500e0036.0000e0051.3100e0033.6000e0045.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 3.3772 3.3772 4.0000e0055.0000e0043.5270 Worker 1.6100e0031.0800e0030.0146 4.0000e0055.1900e0032.0000e0055.2100e0031.3800e0032.0000e0051.4000e0030.0000 3.8451 3.8451 1.1000e0041.1000e0043.8792 Total 1.8600e0038.5900e0030.0179 8.0000e0056.4400e0038.0000e0056.5200e0031.7400e0037.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 7.2223 7.2223 1.5000e0046.1000e0047.4062 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.5700e0030.0874 0.1051 1.8000e0043.9900e0033.9900e0033.7500e0033.7500e0030.0000 15.0702 15.0702 3.5600e0030.0000 15.1593 Total 9.5700e0030.0874 0.1051 1.8000e0043.9900e0033.9900e0033.7500e0033.7500e0030.0000 15.0702 15.0702 3.5600e0030.0000 15.1593 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5000e0047.5100e0033.2700e0034.0000e0051.2500e0036.0000e0051.3100e0033.6000e0045.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 3.3772 3.3772 4.0000e0055.0000e0043.5270 Worker 1.6100e0031.0800e0030.0146 4.0000e0055.1900e0032.0000e0055.2100e0031.3800e0032.0000e0051.4000e0030.0000 3.8451 3.8451 1.1000e0041.1000e0043.8792 Total 1.8600e0038.5900e0030.0179 8.0000e0056.4400e0038.0000e0056.5200e0031.7400e0037.0000e0051.8200e0030.0000 7.2223 7.2223 1.5000e0046.1000e0047.4062 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1484 1.3530 1.7452 2.9300e0030.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 251.6326 251.6326 0.0592 0.0000 253.1114 Total 0.1484 1.3530 1.7452 2.9300e0030.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 251.6326 251.6326 0.0592 0.0000 253.1114 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.1400e0030.1243 0.0540 5.8000e0040.0209 9.4000e0040.0219 6.0500e0039.0000e0046.9500e0030.0000 55.3794 55.3794 6.4000e0048.1800e00357.8320 Worker 0.0252 0.0162 0.2270 6.8000e0040.0866 3.8000e0040.0870 0.0230 3.5000e0040.0234 0.0000 62.0067 62.0067 1.6000e0031.6500e00362.5369 Total 0.0293 0.1405 0.2809 1.2600e0030.1075 1.3200e0030.1089 0.0291 1.2500e0030.0303 0.0000 117.3861 117.3861 2.2400e0039.8300e003120.3689 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1484 1.3530 1.7452 2.9300e0030.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 251.6323 251.6323 0.0592 0.0000 253.1111 Total 0.1484 1.3530 1.7452 2.9300e0030.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 251.6323 251.6323 0.0592 0.0000 253.1111 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.1400e0030.1243 0.0540 5.8000e0040.0209 9.4000e0040.0219 6.0500e0039.0000e0046.9500e0030.0000 55.3794 55.3794 6.4000e0048.1800e00357.8320 Worker 0.0252 0.0162 0.2270 6.8000e0040.0866 3.8000e0040.0870 0.0230 3.5000e0040.0234 0.0000 62.0067 62.0067 1.6000e0031.6500e00362.5369 Total 0.0293 0.1405 0.2809 1.2600e0030.1075 1.3200e0030.1089 0.0291 1.2500e0030.0303 0.0000 117.3861 117.3861 2.2400e0039.8300e003120.3689 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.1500e0030.0858 0.1458 2.3000e0044.1900e0034.1900e0033.8500e0033.8500e0030.0000 20.0193 20.0193 6.4700e0030.0000 20.1811 Paving 4.6600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0138 0.0858 0.1458 2.3000e0044.1900e0034.1900e0033.8500e0033.8500e0030.0000 20.0193 20.0193 6.4700e0030.0000 20.1811 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6000e0042.3000e0043.2300e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.8838 0.8838 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.8913 Total 3.6000e0042.3000e0043.2300e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.8838 0.8838 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.8913 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 9.1500e0030.0858 0.1458 2.3000e0044.1900e0034.1900e0033.8500e0033.8500e0030.0000 20.0192 20.0192 6.4700e0030.0000 20.1811 Paving 4.6600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0138 0.0858 0.1458 2.3000e0044.1900e0034.1900e0033.8500e0033.8500e0030.0000 20.0192 20.0192 6.4700e0030.0000 20.1811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6000e0042.3000e0043.2300e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.8838 0.8838 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.8913 Total 3.6000e0042.3000e0043.2300e0031.0000e0051.2300e0031.0000e0051.2400e0033.3000e0041.0000e0053.3000e0040.0000 0.8838 0.8838 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.8913 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2836 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7100e0030.0115 0.0181 3.0000e0055.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5567 Total 0.2853 0.0115 0.0181 3.0000e0055.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5567 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e0042.9000e0044.1000e0031.0000e0051.5600e0031.0000e0051.5700e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.1194 1.1194 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1290 Total 4.5000e0042.9000e0044.1000e0031.0000e0051.5600e0031.0000e0051.5700e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.1194 1.1194 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1290 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2836 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7100e0030.0115 0.0181 3.0000e0055.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5567 Total 0.2853 0.0115 0.0181 3.0000e0055.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 2.5533 2.5533 1.4000e0040.0000 2.5567 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e0042.9000e0044.1000e0031.0000e0051.5600e0031.0000e0051.5700e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.1194 1.1194 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1290 Total 4.5000e0042.9000e0044.1000e0031.0000e0051.5600e0031.0000e0051.5700e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.2000e0040.0000 1.1194 1.1194 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.1290 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 2.1964 2.3804 15.3564 0.0282 3.0334 0.0245 3.0579 0.8102 0.0229 0.8331 0.0000 2,610.913 9 2,610.913
9 0.2074 0.1690 2,666.447
7 Unmitigated 2.1964 2.3804 15.3564 0.0282 3.0334 0.0245 3.0579 0.8102 0.0229 0.8331 0.0000 2,610.913 9 2,610.913
9 0.2074 0.1690 2,666.447
7 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 6,393.06 6,393.06 6393.06 7,098,506 7,098,506 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 935.00 935.00 935.00 924,414 924,414 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 7,328.06 7,328.06 7,328.06 8,022,920 8,022,920
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps

12.50 4.20 5.40 0.80 80.20 19.00 67.14 0 32.86
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru

12.50 4.20 5.40 2.20 78.80 19.00 58 0 42
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 12.50 4.20 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 12.50 4.20 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps

0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru

0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689 Parking Lot 0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 82.1444 82.1444 5.1000e0036.2000e00482.4559 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 82.1444 82.1444 5.1000e0036.2000e00482.4559 NaturalGas
Mitigated

3.1300e0030.0285 0.0239 1.7000e0042.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 30.9750 30.9750 5.9000e0045.7000e00431.1591 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

3.1300e0030.0285 0.0239 1.7000e0042.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 30.9750 30.9750 5.9000e0045.7000e00431.1591

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
35129.6 1.9000e0041.7200e0031.4500e0031.0000e0051.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.8747 1.8747 4.0000e0053.0000e0051.8858 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
545320 2.9400e0030.0267 0.0225 1.6000e0042.0300e0032.0300e0032.0300e0032.0300e0030.0000 29.1004 29.1004 5.6000e0045.3000e00429.2733 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.1300e0030.0285 0.0239 1.7000e0042.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 30.9750 30.9750 6.0000e0045.6000e00431.1591 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
35129.6 1.9000e0041.7200e0031.4500e0031.0000e0051.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0041.3000e0040.0000 1.8747 1.8747 4.0000e0053.0000e0051.8858 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
545320 2.9400e0030.0267 0.0225 1.6000e0042.0300e0032.0300e0032.0300e0032.0300e0030.0000 29.1004 29.1004 5.6000e0045.3000e00429.2733 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.1300e0030.0285 0.0239 1.7000e0042.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0032.1600e0030.0000 30.9750 30.9750 6.0000e0045.6000e00431.1591 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
193852 46.7768 2.9000e0033.5000e00446.9541
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
92320 22.2770 1.3800e0031.7000e00422.3615
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 54250 13.0906 8.1000e0041.0000e00413.1403 Total 82.1444 5.0900e0036.2000e00482.4559
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps
193852 46.7768 2.9000e0033.5000e00446.9541
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
92320 22.2770 1.3800e0031.7000e00422.3615
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 54250 13.0906 8.1000e0041.0000e00413.1403 Total 82.1444 5.0900e0036.2000e00482.4559
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1128 2.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003 Unmitigated 0.1128 2.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0284 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0842 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.0000e0042.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003 Total 0.1128 2.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0284 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0842 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.0000e0042.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003 Total 0.1128 2.0000e0052.1700e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 4.2300e0034.2300e0031.0000e0050.0000 4.5100e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 3.1643 0.0261 6.3000e0044.0056
Unmitigated 3.1643 0.0261 6.3000e0044.0056

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps

0.188229 /

0.115366

0.9604 6.1900e0031.5000e0041.1603
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

0.607067 /

0.038749

2.2039 0.0199 4.8000e0042.8452
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.1643 0.0261 6.3000e0044.0056
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps

0.188229 /

0.115366

0.9604 6.1900e0031.5000e0041.1603
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

0.607067 /

0.038749

2.2039 0.0199 4.8000e0042.8452
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.1643 0.0261 6.3000e0044.0056
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869
Unmitigated 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

23.04 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

23.04 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 4.6769 0.2764 0.0000 11.5869
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 32 Date: 5/31/2024 1:54 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

Beyond Desert Hot Springs
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer
Project Characteristics - .

Land Use - Per TIA
Construction Phase -
Vehicle Trips - Per TIA; carwash trips added to convenience market with gas pumps land use; internal capture trips counted as pass by Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 61.94 1000sqft 1.42 61,941.00 0 Parking Lot 155.00 1000sqft 3.56 155,000.00 0
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 2.00 1000sqft 0.05 2,000.00 0 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 18.00 Pump 0.37 15,968.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
531.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 61,940.00 61,941.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,541.15 15,968.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.37
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 531.98
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 21.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 21.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 65.00 32.86
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 50.00 42.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 14.00 67.14
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 29.00 58.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 616.12 467.50
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 472.58 467.50
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 470.95 467.50
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 2.7135 27.2050 19.2498 0.0394 19.8076 1.2300 21.0377 10.1424 1.1316 11.2740 0.0000 3,830.588 2 3,830.588
2 1.1960 0.1018 3,876.615
2 2025 28.5842 13.7038 18.9843 0.0390 1.0073 0.5398 1.5471 0.2716 0.5078 0.7795 0.0000 3,797.305 2 3,797.305
2 0.7162 0.0990 3,842.383
2 Maximum 28.5842 27.2050 19.2498 0.0394 19.8076 1.2300 21.0377 10.1424 1.1316 11.2740 0.0000 3,830.588 2 3,830.588
2 1.1960 0.1018 3,876.615
2 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 2.7135 27.2050 19.2498 0.0394 8.9963 1.2300 10.2263 4.5861 1.1316 5.7177 0.0000 3,830.588 2 3,830.588
2 1.1960 0.1018 3,876.615
2 2025 28.5842 13.7038 18.9843 0.0390 1.0073 0.5398 1.5471 0.2716 0.5078 0.7795 0.0000 3,797.305 2 3,797.305
2 0.7162 0.0990 3,842.383
2 Maximum 28.5842 27.2050 19.2498 0.0394 8.9963 1.2300 10.2263 4.5861 1.1316 5.7177 0.0000 3,830.588 2 3,830.588
2 1.1960 0.1018 3,876.615
2 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.94 0.00 47.87 53.35 0.00 46.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.6190 2.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552 Energy 0.0172 0.1559 0.1310 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.0909 187.0909 3.5900e0033.4300e003188.2027 Mobile 14.9352 12.3781 87.4223 0.1638 16.9464 0.1346 17.0810 4.5203 0.1259 4.6462 16,698.23 46 16,698.23
46 1.1859 0.9993 17,025.66
78 Total 15.5713 12.5343 87.5774 0.1648 16.9464 0.1465 17.0929 4.5203 0.1378 4.6581 16,885.37 74 16,885.37
74 1.1896 1.0027 17,213.92
58 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.6190 2.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552 Energy 0.0172 0.1559 0.1310 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.0909 187.0909 3.5900e0033.4300e003188.2027 Mobile 14.9352 12.3781 87.4223 0.1638 16.9464 0.1346 17.0810 4.5203 0.1259 4.6462 16,698.23 46 16,698.23
46 1.1859 0.9993 17,025.66
78 Total 15.5713 12.5343 87.5774 0.1648 16.9464 0.1465 17.0929 4.5203 0.1378 4.6581 16,885.37 74 16,885.37
74 1.1896 1.0027 17,213.92
58 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 11/1/2024 11/14/2024 5 10 2 Grading Grading 11/15/2024 12/12/2024 5 20
3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/13/2024 10/30/2025 5 230 4 Paving Paving 10/31/2025 11/27/2025 5 20
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/28/2025 12/25/2025 5 20 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 26,952; Non-Residential Outdoor: 8,984; Striped Parking Area: 13,016 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 15
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 4.98
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 97.00 39.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 19.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.40 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 19.6570 0.0000 19.6570 10.1025 0.0000 10.1025 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 1.2294 1.2294 1.1310 1.1310 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Total 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 19.6570 1.2294 20.8864 10.1025 1.1310 11.2335 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0290 0.4803 1.2900e0030.1506 6.9000e0040.1513 0.0400 6.4000e0040.0406 130.4366 130.4366 3.2500e0033.1900e003131.4684 Total 0.0526 0.0290 0.4803 1.2900e0030.1506 6.9000e0040.1513 0.0400 6.4000e0040.0406 130.4366 130.4366 3.2500e0033.1900e003131.4684 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 8.8457 0.0000 8.8457 4.5461 0.0000 4.5461 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 1.2294 1.2294 1.1310 1.1310 0.0000 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Total 2.6609 27.1760 18.3356 0.0381 8.8457 1.2294 10.0750 4.5461 1.1310 5.6771 0.0000 3,688.010 0 3,688.010
0 1.1928 3,717.829
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0290 0.4803 1.2900e0030.1506 6.9000e0040.1513 0.0400 6.4000e0040.0406 130.4366 130.4366 3.2500e0033.1900e003131.4684 Total 0.0526 0.0290 0.4803 1.2900e0030.1506 6.9000e0040.1513 0.0400 6.4000e0040.0406 130.4366 130.4366 3.2500e0033.1900e003131.4684 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0826 0.0000 7.0826 3.4247 0.0000 3.4247 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6617 17.0310 14.7594 0.0297 0.7244 0.7244 0.6665 0.6665 2,873.054 1 2,873.054
1 0.9292 2,896.284
2 Total 1.6617 17.0310 14.7594 0.0297 7.0826 0.7244 7.8070 3.4247 0.6665 4.0912 2,873.054 1 2,873.054
1 0.9292 2,896.284
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0438 0.0242 0.4003 1.0800e0030.1255 5.8000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.3000e0040.0338 108.6972 108.6972 2.7100e0032.6600e003109.5570 Total 0.0438 0.0242 0.4003 1.0800e0030.1255 5.8000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.3000e0040.0338 108.6972 108.6972 2.7100e0032.6600e003109.5570 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.3 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 3.1872 0.0000 3.1872 1.5411 0.0000 1.5411 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6617 17.0310 14.7594 0.0297 0.7244 0.7244 0.6665 0.6665 0.0000 2,873.054 1 2,873.054
1 0.9292 2,896.284
2 Total 1.6617 17.0310 14.7594 0.0297 3.1872 0.7244 3.9116 1.5411 0.6665 2.2076 0.0000 2,873.054 1 2,873.054
1 0.9292 2,896.284
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0438 0.0242 0.4003 1.0800e0030.1255 5.8000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.3000e0040.0338 108.6972 108.6972 2.7100e0032.6600e003109.5570 Total 0.0438 0.0242 0.4003 1.0800e0030.1255 5.8000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.3000e0040.0338 108.6972 108.6972 2.7100e0032.6600e003109.5570 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0403 1.1023 0.4946 5.3900e0030.1957 8.6900e0030.2044 0.0564 8.3100e0030.0647 571.9808 571.9808 6.3700e0030.0846 597.3389 Worker 0.2834 0.1563 2.5884 6.9500e0030.8116 3.7300e0030.8153 0.2153 3.4300e0030.2187 702.9085 702.9085 0.0175 0.0172 708.4686 Total 0.3236 1.2586 3.0830 0.0123 1.0073 0.0124 1.0197 0.2716 0.0117 0.2834 1,274.889 3 1,274.889
3 0.0239 0.1018 1,305.807
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Total 1.4716 13.4438 16.1668 0.0270 0.6133 0.6133 0.5769 0.5769 0.0000 2,555.698 9 2,555.698
9 0.6044 2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0403 1.1023 0.4946 5.3900e0030.1957 8.6900e0030.2044 0.0564 8.3100e0030.0647 571.9808 571.9808 6.3700e0030.0846 597.3389 Worker 0.2834 0.1563 2.5884 6.9500e0030.8116 3.7300e0030.8153 0.2153 3.4300e0030.2187 702.9085 702.9085 0.0175 0.0172 708.4686 Total 0.3236 1.2586 3.0830 0.0123 1.0073 0.0124 1.0197 0.2716 0.0117 0.2834 1,274.889 3 1,274.889
3 0.0239 0.1018 1,305.807
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0398 1.0937 0.4894 5.3000e0030.1957 8.6900e0030.2044 0.0564 8.3200e0030.0647 561.8907 561.8907 6.5900e0030.0829 586.7619 Worker 0.2645 0.1404 2.4102 6.7200e0030.8116 3.5400e0030.8151 0.2153 3.2600e0030.2185 678.9401 678.9401 0.0159 0.0161 684.1232 Total 0.3043 1.2341 2.8997 0.0120 1.0073 0.0122 1.0195 0.2716 0.0116 0.2832 1,240.830 8 1,240.830
8 0.0225 0.0990 1,270.885
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.4 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Total 1.3674 12.4697 16.0847 0.0270 0.5276 0.5276 0.4963 0.4963 0.0000 2,556.474 4 2,556.474
4 0.6010 2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0398 1.0937 0.4894 5.3000e0030.1957 8.6900e0030.2044 0.0564 8.3200e0030.0647 561.8907 561.8907 6.5900e0030.0829 586.7619 Worker 0.2645 0.1404 2.4102 6.7200e0030.8116 3.5400e0030.8151 0.2153 3.2600e0030.2185 678.9401 678.9401 0.0159 0.0161 684.1232 Total 0.3043 1.2341 2.8997 0.0120 1.0073 0.0122 1.0195 0.2716 0.0116 0.2832 1,240.830 8 1,240.830
8 0.0225 0.0990 1,270.885
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.4664 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3815 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0409 0.0217 0.3727 1.0400e0030.1255 5.5000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.0000e0040.0338 104.9907 104.9907 2.4500e0032.4800e003105.7923 Total 0.0409 0.0217 0.3727 1.0400e0030.1255 5.5000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.0000e0040.0338 104.9907 104.9907 2.4500e0032.4800e003105.7923 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.5 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9152 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Paving 0.4664 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3815 8.5816 14.5780 0.0228 0.4185 0.4185 0.3850 0.3850 0.0000 2,206.745 2 2,206.745
2 0.7137 2,224.587
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0409 0.0217 0.3727 1.0400e0030.1255 5.5000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.0000e0040.0338 104.9907 104.9907 2.4500e0032.4800e003105.7923 Total 0.0409 0.0217 0.3727 1.0400e0030.1255 5.5000e0040.1261 0.0333 5.0000e0040.0338 104.9907 104.9907 2.4500e0032.4800e003105.7923 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.3616 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 28.5324 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0518 0.0275 0.4721 1.3200e0030.1590 6.9000e0040.1597 0.0422 6.4000e0040.0428 132.9883 132.9883 3.1100e0033.1500e003134.0035 Total 0.0518 0.0275 0.4721 1.3200e0030.1590 6.9000e0040.1597 0.0422 6.4000e0040.0428 132.9883 132.9883 3.1100e0033.1500e003134.0035 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 28.3616 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 28.5324 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0518 0.0275 0.4721 1.3200e0030.1590 6.9000e0040.1597 0.0422 6.4000e0040.0428 132.9883 132.9883 3.1100e0033.1500e003134.0035 Total 0.0518 0.0275 0.4721 1.3200e0030.1590 6.9000e0040.1597 0.0422 6.4000e0040.0428 132.9883 132.9883 3.1100e0033.1500e003134.0035 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 14.9352 12.3781 87.4223 0.1638 16.9464 0.1346 17.0810 4.5203 0.1259 4.6462 16,698.23 46 16,698.23
46 1.1859 0.9993 17,025.66
78 Unmitigated 14.9352 12.3781 87.4223 0.1638 16.9464 0.1346 17.0810 4.5203 0.1259 4.6462 16,698.23 46 16,698.23
46 1.1859 0.9993 17,025.66
78 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 6,393.06 6,393.06 6393.06 7,098,506 7,098,506 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 935.00 935.00 935.00 924,414 924,414 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 7,328.06 7,328.06 7,328.06 8,022,920 8,022,920
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps

12.50 4.20 5.40 0.80 80.20 19.00 67.14 0 32.86
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru

12.50 4.20 5.40 2.20 78.80 19.00 58 0 42
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 12.50 4.20 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Parking Lot 12.50 4.20 5.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Convenience Market with Gas
Pumps

0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689 Fast Food Restaurant with Drive
Thru

0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689 Parking Lot 0.542916 0.056689 0.174450 0.134041 0.024680 0.006960 0.011589 0.018600 0.000608 0.000298 0.023389 0.001091 0.004689

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0172 0.1559 0.1310 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.0909 187.0909 3.5900e0033.4300e003188.2027 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0172 0.1559 0.1310 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.0909 187.0909 3.5900e0033.4300e003188.2027

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps

96.2455 1.0400e0039.4400e0037.9300e0036.0000e0057.2000e0047.2000e0047.2000e0047.2000e00411.3230 11.3230 2.2000e0042.1000e00411.3903 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru
1494.03 0.0161 0.1465 0.1230 8.8000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 175.7679 175.7679 3.3700e0033.2200e003176.8124 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0172 0.1559 0.1310 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.0909 187.0909 3.5900e0033.4300e003188.2027 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Convenience
Market with Gas
Pumps

0.0962455 1.0400e0039.4400e0037.9300e0036.0000e0057.2000e0047.2000e0047.2000e0047.2000e00411.3230 11.3230 2.2000e0042.1000e00411.3903 Fast Food
Restaurant with
Drive Thru

1.49403 0.0161 0.1465 0.1230 8.8000e0040.0111 0.0111 0.0111 0.0111 175.7679 175.7679 3.3700e0033.2200e003176.8124 Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0172 0.1559 0.1310 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.0909 187.0909 3.5900e0033.4300e003188.2027 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.6190 2.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552 Unmitigated 0.6190 2.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1554 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.4614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.2200e0032.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552 Total 0.6190 2.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1554 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.4614 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.2200e0032.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552 Total 0.6190 2.2000e0040.0241 0.0000 9.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0059.0000e0050.0519 0.0519 1.3000e0040.0552 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 1:58 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

Beyond Desert Hot Springs
Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter
Project Characteristics - .

Land Use - Per TIA
Construction Phase -
Vehicle Trips - Per TIA; carwash trips added to convenience market with gas pumps land use; internal capture trips counted as pass by Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 61.94 1000sqft 1.42 61,941.00 0 Parking Lot 155.00 1000sqft 3.56 155,000.00 0
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru 2.00 1000sqft 0.05 2,000.00 0 Convenience Market with Gas Pumps 18.00 Pump 0.37 15,968.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.4 Precipitation Freq (Days) 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
531.98 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 61,940.00 61,941.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 2,541.15 15,968.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 2:01 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.06 0.37
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 531.98
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 21.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips DV_TP 21.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 65.00 32.86
tblVehicleTrips PB_TP 50.00 42.00
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 14.00 67.14
tblVehicleTrips PR_TP 29.00 58.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 616.12 467.50
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 472.58 467.50
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 322.50 355.17
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 470.95 467.50
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 2:01 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 2.7091 27.2061 18.8164 0.0392 19.8076 1.2300 21.0377 10.1424 1.1316 11.2740 0.0000 3,806.278 0 3,806.278
0 1.1961 0.1025 3,837.153
5 2025 28.5801 13.7766 18.5853 0.0384 1.0073 0.5398 1.5471 0.2716 0.5079 0.7795 0.0000 3,735.885 3 3,735.885
3 0.7162 0.0997 3,781.179
6 Maximum 28.5801 27.2061 18.8164 0.0392 19.8076 1.2300 21.0377 10.1424 1.1316 11.2740 0.0000 3,806.278 0 3,806.278
0 1.1961 0.1025 3,837.153
5 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 2.7091 27.2061 18.8164 0.0392 8.9963 1.2300 10.2263 4.5861 1.1316 5.7177 0.0000 3,806.278 0 3,806.278
0 1.1961 0.1025 3,837.153
5 2025 28.5801 13.7766 18.5853 0.0384 1.0073 0.5398 1.5471 0.2716 0.5079 0.7795 0.0000 3,735.885 3 3,735.885
3 0.7162 0.0997 3,781.179
6 Maximum 28.5801 27.2061 18.8164 0.0392 8.9963 1.2300 10.2263 4.5861 1.1316 5.7177 0.0000 3,806.278 0 3,806.278
0 1.1961 0.1025 3,837.153
5 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 26 Date: 5/31/2024 2:01 PM Beyond Desert Hot Springs - Riverside-Salton Sea County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Item Number: 1.